Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

EDINBURGH AND MIDLOTHIAN WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read a Second time; to be considered Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Northolt Airport (Traffic Control)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he is aware of the delays caused to incoming and outgoing airliners at Northolt airport; how these delays were incurred; and what steps are being taken to remedy the situation.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): Yes, Sir. There were unusually severe delays to aircraft movements at Northolt during a spell of instrument flight rule conditions on 14th June, the day after new procedures were introduced in the Metropolitan control zone. Advantage has been taken of the experience gained in instrument flight rule conditions since the system was inaugurated to introduce certain modifications, and this process will continue as necessary.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the Parliamentary Secretary now satisfied that in future these delays will not occur? Is he also satisfied that as a result of the alteration in the control system in regard to the stacking of aircraft a good safety margin is now given?

Mr. Lindgren: I hope we shall never be satisfied until we reach perfection,

which will take a long time. We are satisfied, in regard to organisation and procedure, that the slight element of risk which previously existed, because of the proximity of the two airports, has been eliminated. With the progressive use of the new procedure, I hope that delays will be reduced.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation how many aircraft were delayed in the week commencing 13th June at Northolt airport by the new system of air traffic control and for what total period; and what are the comparable figures for the week commencing 19th June.

Mr. Lindgren: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Colonel Hutchison: May I, nevertheless, ask whether this system of traffic control is intended only for Northolt, or whether it is being installed elsewhere?

Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. This system has been dictated by the close proximity of the two airports, London and Northolt.

Following are the details:


BROAD ANALYSIS OF TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS AT NORTHOLT AIRPORT FOR WEEKS COMMENCING—



Prior to introduction of modified system of air traffic control
Subsequent to introduction of modified system of air traffic control



Week commencing 6.6.49
Week commencing 13.6.49
Week commencing 20.6.49


Total Movements





*IFR Take Off
155
119
156


Landing
91
111
100


†VFR Take Off
406
429
382


Landing
453
439
432


Grand Total
1,105
1,098
1,070


Number of Aircraft delayed





*IFR Take Off
114
73
99


Landing
80
87
81


Total delayed
194
160
180







Prior to introduction of modified system of air traffic control
Subsequent to introduction of modified system of air traffic control



Week commencing 6.6.49
Week commencing 13.6.49
Week commencing 20.6.49


Mean Delay (delayed aircraft)





Take Off
4¼ mins.
12 mins.
4 mins.


Landing
3 mins.
14½ mins.
5½ mins.


Aggregate Delay





Take Off
8 hrs.
14½ hrs.
6½ hrs.


Landing
4 hrs.
21 hrs.
7½ hrs.


Total Delay
12 hrs.
35½ hrs.
14 hrs.


Longest Delay





Take Off
40 mins.
59 mins.
41 mins.


Landing
30 mins.
70 mins.
48 mins.


Total time when IFR was in operation
28½ hrs.
30 hrs.
44½ hrs.


Percentage of IFR aircraft delayed
79%
70%
70%


Average Delay (delayed air-aircraft)
3¾ mins.
13½ mins.
4½ mins.


Percentage of total movements delayed
18%
15%
17%


* IFR=Instrument Flight Rules.


† VFR=Visual Flight Rules.


N.B.—These figures may be subject to minor adjustments.

Airports, London

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will make a statement naming the civil airports which are to be in use for the next five years within a radius of 40 miles of London.

Mr. Lindgren: I have nothing to add to the statement I made in the Debate in Committee of Supply on 1st March last.

Air-Commodore Harvey: But that statement was very unsatisfactory to civil operators. It is surely up to the Ministry to make definite plans, within the limits of the country's economy, so that operators know their tenure at airports? When will the Parliamentary Secretary be in a position to come to an early decision in the matter?

Mr. Lindgren: That decision has already been indicated. We shall de-requisition Blackbushe at the earliest possible moment, which will be in 1951, if not earlier; it will be derequisitioned in 1952 at the latest.

Israel (Direct Service)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation when a direct through air service to Israel will be established.

Mr. Lindgren: The matter is still being considered, and I will give the House further information as soon as possible.

Mr. Erroll: Cannot we have some action in the matter instead of merely consideration, as the airlines of other countries are making handsome profits out of routes to this country?

Mr. Lindgren: We are providing communication three times a week—once to Lydda and twice to Haifa.

Lisbon-Azores-Bermuda Route

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation when it is proposed to introduce the Lisbon-Azores-Bermuda route of British South American Airways Corporation.

Mr. Lindgren: The resumption of this service will be reviewed as soon as the aircraft position permits.

Air-Commodore Harvey: That is another unsatisfactory reply. Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that this route could be a great dollar earner? Will he give the matter his most urgent consideration with a view to getting something on the route?

Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir; but the only satisfactory aircraft is the Stratocruiser, which costs dollars to buy. The Constellation would only operate on the route with a very reduced payload compared with the North Atlantic operation.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (SITUATION)

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in China and the steps taken to safeguard the lives and property of British subjects.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): Recent developments in the China situation have been fairly fully reported in the Press and there is not much that I would wish to add. The House will be aware that no foreign Government has yet entered into formal relations with the Communist authorities who, indeed, do not claim to have set up a government of national character.
In spite of this, and entirely without prejudice to the recognition question, we had hoped that our representatives in China would be able to maintain day-to-day contact with these authorities for the solution of common problems. Unfortunately, all such contacts have been declined. This situation obviously complicated the task of our Consular officers, whose duties include the safeguarding of local British interests. I think they are to be congratulated on the job they have done so far in very difficult circumstances.
Considerable discipline has been shown in the taking over of Shanghai; British lives and property escaped intact except for a certain amount of damage suffered by British residential property at the hands of Nationalist troops in the course of military operations.

Sir I. Fraser: Are there now adequate forces to enable the right hon. Gentleman to give an assurance that British lives and property will be safeguarded?

Mr. Bevin: I have no forces in Shanghai.

Sir I. Fraser: In China generally?

Mr. Bevin: I have no forces in China.

Lieut. - Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Would the right hon. Gentleman comment on the recent statement in the Press to the effect that naval personnel on board the "Amethyst" are again having difficulty in receiving their mails?

Mr. Bevin: I would prefer a Question to be put down in regard to the "Amethyst" than that I should answer supplementaries about it.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Was not the Question about the forces in China obviously referring to the forces of the Popular Armies, which are clearly able to protect all foreigners and all foreign property?

Mr. Bevin: That is another question.

Mr. Gallacher: In connection with the safeguarding of British lives would not the right hon. Gentleman be a big fellow in the truest sense and safeguard them by diplomatic connection with the liberation forces? Is not that the best way?

Mr. Bevin: I hope I am a big fellow in the true sense of the word. I have already told the House that I have asked our Consular officers to contact the authorities but the authorities refuse to speak to us. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) would send word on to his friends and tell them to be more sensible.

Oral Answers to Questions — HELIGOLAND (FRISIANS)

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the Frisians of Heligoland are neither permitted to return to their island, nor to accept the invitation of the North Frisians of South Schleswig to settle permanently on the island of Sylt and why the plans of the British Government with regard to this island and its inhabitants are still kept secret.

Mr. Bevin: There is no secrecy regarding British policy over Heligoland and I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement issued on 5th October last by the British authorities in Germany. Nothing is known of any invitation such as that described in the Question, but His Majesty's Government would have no objection to any such invitation being accepted. The Land Government is sympathetic towards the transfer of Heligolanders to Sylt and some 20 persons have been moved from the mainland to Sylt on a voluntary exchange basis.

Professor Savory: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that these 2,500 Heligolanders, who have now been evacuated for four years from their native island, will be allowed to return to their beloved home?

Mr. Bevin: I cannot give any assurance under that head, but that is not in the Question.

Mr. Sorensen: Could my right hon. Friend say whether this island was so heavily bombed during the war that it is unlikely to be habitable for some time?

Mr. Bevin: That is correct.

Mr. Sorensen: Who is responsible for the compensation of these Frieslanders and for their present maintenance?

Mr. Bevin: I should like to have notice of that question.

Following is the statement:

The memorandum on Heligoland which was handed to the Regional Commissioners of Schleswig-Holstein, Hamburg and Niedersachsen by their Land Governments has received the careful consideration of British Military Government in Germany. It has been known for some time that the decision to continue using Heligoland as an R.A.F. practice bombing target is causing concern among the population of North-West Germany, but the following explanation should make it clear that this decision is not motivated simply by the desire to destroy an island which has for long been held in affection as a beauty spot and holiday resort.

Heligoland was one of the principal German Naval Bases in two world wars. In the last war it was severely bombed, and after the end of hostilities suffered further damage when its underground defences were demolished. Very little remains of the township—one report states that only six houses can be repaired—and the damage by air raids and demolition has made it necessary for the island to be abandoned.

Suitable targets for the training of a bomber fleet are extremely difficult to find and Heligoland in its present condition is the only place in a reasonably convenient geographical situation which is suitable and available for this purpose. It was only after prolonged discussions between the Air Ministry and the Foreign Office that the decision to continue using Heligoland as an R.A.F. practice target was taken.

The decision will inevitably postpone the commencement of reconstruction but it will not result in further significant damage to the island, let alone in its destruction. Generally speaking, only two types of exercise will be carried out on the island and only one type, namely individual attacks from single aircraft, will involve the dropping of high explosive bombs. During the other type of exercise, mass raids by heavy bombers,

the planes will only drop indicators and flash bombs and no high explosive bombs of any type will be used. These practices are not expected to take place more than two or three times a month and it will be obvious that the limited use of high explosive can add but little to the damage which already exists.

Though the Germans' wish to restore Heligoland as a community and as a holiday resort is well understood it must be emphasised that the island contains no natural resources which would contribute towards German recovery and for this reason, its reconstruction must in any case come low on the list of priorities and could not take place for some years to come.

As regards the amount of warning that can be given to fishing boats that wish to use the harbours of the island as a temporary refuge during rough weather, it is unfortunately not possible to give more than forty-eight hours' warning, since plans for bombing practices must necessarily depend on short-term meteorological reports.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLAND (BRITISH SUBJECT'S ARREST)

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement with regard to the case of Mrs. Firth, a British subject employed by the British Embassy in Warsaw, who was arrested by the Polish police a month ago.

Mr. Bevin: Mrs. Halina Firth is of Polish birth and acquired British nationality by marriage in 1928. On 12th April last she was engaged as a translator in the joint Press-reading service of the British and American Embassies in Warsaw and on 13th May she was arrested by the Polish security police. It is understood that she is accused of activities directed against the Polish State.
Under Polish Law Mrs. Firth's position would normally have entitled her to diplomatic immunity, but this has been refused on the ground that no formal notification of her appointment had been made to the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs before her arrest. Although the Polish authorities have recognised that Mrs. Firth is a British subject, they have,


so far, refused to allow the British Consul to see her.
His Majesty's Ambassador in Warsaw has protested to the Polish Government against Mrs. Firth's arrest and against their refusal to allow her to see the British Consul.

Professor Savory: How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to carry on the work of the British Embassy in Warsaw if there are these continual arrests of British subjects like this lady and others, like Marie Marynowska, who was arrested over a year ago? Is not the intention to prevent the British Government from carrying on their diplomatic work in Warsaw?

Mr. Bevin: The task of carrying on in countries behind the Iron Curtain is very difficult, and the choice is whether we should break off altogether. Nobody, whether man or woman of the nationality of those countries or approaching the nationality of those countries or who has had the nationality of those countries before marriage, is safe from the N.K.V.D.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Is there nothing more that the right hon. Gentleman can do to safeguard the personal liberty of this lady, who is our fellow-citizen and our servant?

Mr. Bevin: I have taken every possible course open to me except the breaking off of negotiations, and that is a very delicate thing to do. I have protested, and in many cases in these countries behind the Iron Curtain I have taken action by calling for the return of other people. I admit that the situation, with the secret police business, is extremely unsatisfactory.

Mr. R. A. Butler: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's very definite statement that nobody of the original nationality of the countries behind the Iron Curtain is safe when employed in British embassies or legations, could the right hon. Gentleman state if there are any other persons employed in similar countries?

Mr. Bevin: I have sent out messages to the Embassies that the whole thing must be looked into, and they must take care, when they employ such persons that immediate application for the exercise of immunity must be made at once. No risk must be taken at all.

Oral Answers to Questions — JERUSALEM (HOLY PLACES)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now make a statement on the proposals of the United Nations Conciliation Committee for securing international control under the auspices of the United Nations of Holy Places such as Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Nazareth in the State of Israel.

Mr. Bevin: The Conciliation Commission is charged with the task of submitting to the Fourth Regular Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations detailed proposals for the internationalisation of the Jerusalem area and the protection of the Holy Places. The Commission have not yet published their proposals, and it would be premature at this stage to make any statement.

Mr. Freeman: Will my right hon. Friend say whether they will have power to deal with areas outside Jerusalem such as Bethlehem and Nazareth, and can he give any indication as to when the report is likely to be available?

Mr. Bevin: I cannot tell when the report will be available, but the decision of the United Nations was that the whole area should be internationalised. That is the directive which the Commission has been told to work out with the parties.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH SCHLESWIG (GERMAN REFUGEES)

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the offer of the Royal Danish Government to defray the expenses of the transfer of German refugees in South Schleswig to other zones of Germany.

Mr. Bevin: I have no knowledge of such an offer.

Professor Savory: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Royal Danish Government have offered to provide transport, food and transit camps, and that they are awaiting a reply by His Majesty's Government, their desire being to reduce the excessive number of refugees, which in several cases exceeds the native population?

Mr. Bevin: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have received no such offer.

Oral Answers to Questions — U.S. AIR FORCE (EUROPE)

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in view of the outcome of the Foreign Ministers' Conference, and to contribute to the strengthening of mutual confidence among the Powers, if he will propose to the United States Government that the air lift to Berlin be brought to an end, and American Air Force personnel withdrawn from the United Kingdom.

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Can we assume from this brief answer that the Government are not prepared to take any steps to strengthen mutual confidence amongst the Powers?

Mr. Bevin: I think the course we have taken over the last year has restored confidence.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

August Thyssen Steelworks

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received and studied the plan for retaining the August Thyssen steelworks in the German economy, recently presented to the Regional Commissioner for North-Rhine-Westphalia by the German Land Premier, Herr Arnold; and whether, as this advocates control of the organisation by an international committee, he will remove this plant from the list of those to be dismantled and allow this experiment to be tried out.

Mr. Bevin: Despite Press reports to the contrary, Dr. Arnold's own proposals were not submitted to the Regional Commissioner until the morning of Saturday, 25th June. I have not yet studied them, but at first sight they appear to conflict with the recent inter-governmental agreements on reparations and industrial disarmament.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: When my right hon. Friend is considering this matter will he bear in mind the very serious unemployment problem which now exists in this part of Germany, and will he, if possible, and if it seems to be at all reasonable, meet the point of view of Herr Arnold?

Mr. Bevin: I cannot lead the German people to believe that the adoption of any subterfuge will alter these agreements. They have been worked out with great care and they are intergovernmental agreements. It is misleading the Germans to let them assume that these war industries are going to be restored to Germany.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In considering this matter will the Foreign Secretary consult with the German Trade Union Congress, and will he also bear in mind the fact that this plant may be useful for turning out steel houses? Will he give every consideration to these points before he orders the destruction of plant which can be turned to good account for Europe?

Mr. Bevin: We have gone into every point. I am not concerned only with the trade unionists of Germany, but with the people of Europe who have suffered German attacks, and this House must always bear that in mind when dealing with these war industries.

Mr. Wilson Harris: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the necessity for destruction on the ground of security. In view of the fact that the loss of the plant would largely kill the industry, will not the right hon. Gentleman give the matter careful and sympathetic consideration.

Mr. Bevin: I will give the matter careful and sympathetic consideration, but I am not going to be led into a position, after these months and months of negotiation, where German propaganda and pressure can make me alter my mind. That would only mislead the Germans and would lead to our never clearing up this problem.

Film Industry

Lady Tweedsmuir: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at what date the occupying Powers intend to hand back control of the German film industry to the Germans on a Laender governmental basis.

Mr. Bevin: I am looking into this and will write to the hon. Member.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that if it


takes place, the occupying Powers will maintain an effective power of censorship?

Mr. Bevin: I would like notice of questions about censorship in Germany, once the government is established. I would not like to answer off-hand, but I will look into the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL EMPIRE

Industrial Development (Advice)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will seek the advice of the Council of Industrial Design and other industrial advisory bodies in the United Kingdom to assist those engaged in the development of secondary industries in the Colonies in order to improve the design and marketability of their products; and whether, wherever practicable, local facilities will be provided for training suitable personnel in the management of such enterprises.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): It is common practice to obtain expert advice on technical questions affecting the Colonies and I should certainly consider taking such advice on any specific question on the design and marketability of articles made in the Colonies that may arise. As regards the second part of the Question, it is the general policy to provide or encourage facilities for training the people of the Colonies to take an increasing share in the operation of secondary industries.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that makers of West African furniture have not had the benefit of the advice on utility furniture from the Council of Industrial Design and that they have lost certain markets for furniture in this country?

Mr. Creech Jones: I am most anxious that they should have the benefit of the best advice we can obtain for them. The suggestion in the Question is very much in our mind.

Annual Report (Publication)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he

expects to publish the Colonial Empire Annual Report, 1948–49.

Mr. Creech Jones: The report was published at 4.30 p.m. yesterday as Command Paper No. 7715.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that no undue distress was caused to his Department by the early birth of this Report?

Mr. Creech Jones: No, Sir. I promised last year that I would get the report out as expeditiously as possible, and that I have done this year.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEEWARD ISLANDS (OIL BORING)

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) what has been the cost to date of the geological survey carried out in the Leeward Islands and around the coast of these islands with a view to discovering deposits of oil; and on what date the decision was taken to proceed immediately with under-water boring for oil;
(2) whether he has now completed his inquiries into the immediate plans of the Governor of the Leeward Islands to proceed with under-water boring for oil along the coast of these islands; what will be the approximate cost of this project each year for the next five years; and when boring is to commence.

Mr. Creech Jones: I fear that there is some misunderstanding on this matter. No geological survey of the Leeward Islands has been or is as yet being carried out. The Legislative Council of St. Kitts-Nevis urged last October that a survey should take place with special emphasis on the possible presence of oil. The Governor has been in touch with the Director of Geological Survey in British Guiana regarding this matter, and the situation in these islands will be related to other geological work to be done in the region. I am advised, however, that it is unlikely that the geological structure of the Islands is favourable for the accumulation of oil.

Major Beamish: Does the Colonial Secretary mean by that reply that, when the Governor said about four months ago that he had immediate plans


—those were his exact words—for proceeding with boring for oil, in fact he had no such plans?

Mr. Creech Jones: I understand that the Governor meant that he intended to try to find oil after finding water.

Major Beamish: While I fail to see the connection between oil and water, may I ask the Colonial Secretary to make it clear that there are no plans to proceed with underwater boring for oil, that there is no geological survey, and that the plan exists only in the imagination of the Governor?

Mr. Creech Jones: I said that there had been as yet no survey, but that the Governor has been in touch with the Director of Geological Survey, stationed in British Guiana. The survey of this territory and these waters will be related to the general survey going on in the region.

Mr. Keeling: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what the connection is between water and oil?

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA (WAR DAMAGE CLAIMS)

Mr. Walter Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he is taking for the provision of adequate and increased staff in order to accelerate the investigation and assessment of claims for war damage and rehabilitation in Malaya; and whether, in view of his statement in the House on 14th July 1948, that the present staff was insufficient, and of the loss of interest, etc., to claimants owing to the consequent delays, he will ensure that fully adequate staff is immediately provided.

Mr. Creech Jones: As the hon. Member is aware, no war damage compensation scheme has so far been implemented, since His Majesty's Government's recent offer is still under consideration by the Malayan Governments. As soon as a scheme is approved, the hon. Member may be assured that I will take all possible steps to assist the Malayan Governments in obtaining any additional staff which they may require.

Mr. Fletcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has not answered that

part of the Question which refers to assessments and that it is the resignations from the assessment side that are causing very great delay and hardship? Will the right hon. Gentleman implement the undertaking that he gave on the date mentioned in the Question, to see that these assessments are carried out much more rapidly, and that when the new scheme is put into operation there is no further delay?

Mr. Creech Jones: I will certainly look into the point with regard to assessments, but in regard to the actual application of the scheme, in which I think there was some difficulty, I promised to do everything in my power, and that promise I will carry out.

Commander Noble: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any progress has been made with the problem of goods requisitioned, on which there is considerable feeling in Malaya and about which I have been in correspondence with him?

Mr. Creech Jones: I would like to have notice of that question. The whole of this problem is being dealt with by the Malayan Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOLD COAST

Immigration Regulations

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a further statement about the Gold Coast immigration regulations.

Mr. Creech Jones: As I informed the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) on 23rd March, the "Gazette" notice and directive were withdrawn by the Gold Coast Government for re-framing. The representations made by the interests concerned have been fully taken into account, and after discussions in which the Attorney-General of the Gold Coast took part, the Gold Coast Government published a revised notice in the "Gazette" of 18th June. A copy of the revised document has been placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Keeling: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the revised regulations are designed in the true interests of the Colony and not as a mere sop to ill-informed agitation?

Mr. Creech Jones: I think we have tried to keep in mind in the redrafting of this directive, the criticisms which were formerly made, and that the general principles of policy previously laid down have been adhered to in the latest draft.

Sir Peter Macdonald: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the person responsible for the original drafting of these regulations was reprimanded or taken to task for issuing such documents?

Mr. Creech Jones: I do not accept that as a description of the procedure which was followed.

Junior Schools, Accra

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Gold Coast Education Department intends to take over the Church of England junior schools in Accra now closed down through lack of funds.

Mr. Creech Jones: I have asked the Acting Governor for information and will write to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Sorensen: Can we take it that the children who failed to receive education are not receiving it now owing to lack of funds and that we shall accommodate these people when the schools open?

Mr. Creech Jones: That question raises very difficult points of policy. The matter is within the competence of the local government, and we are watching the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — UGANDA DISTURBANCES (INQUIRY)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the report of the inquiry into the recent disturbances in Uganda may be expected.

Mr. Creech Jones: The inquiry is proceeding as expeditiously as possible, but I cannot give a date when the Commissioner's report may be expected.

Mr. Skinnard: In view of the recent reports that there have been a considerable number of cases of arson and that there is increasing activity of a very serious nature, would it not be advisable to give a directive that a report should be issued as soon as possible?

Mr. Creech Jones: There is no doubt that the Commissioner is doing his best and working as fast as he can to take the evidence. I am sure that there will be no delay on his part in submitting the report.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAMAICA (CATTLE INDUSTRY)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Secretary of. State for the Colonies if, in view of the importance of the development of the cattle industry in Jamaica, he will take steps to secure an early appointment to the post of pastures officer, which has been vacant for two years.

Mr. Creech Jones: The pasture management officer resigned, for personal reasons, in 1947. It was then decided to abolish the post and for the duties to devolve on the permanent establishment of the agricultural department.

Mr. Skinnard: In view of the increasing importance of the cattle industry in the West Indies generally, and particularly in Jamaica, would it not be possible to appoint an officer specifically to help the pen keepers in the industry.

Mr. Creech-Jones: That is a matter within the competence of the Government of Jamaica itself, and I have no doubt that they are very much exercised both with regard to the veterinary side of their agricultural department and the desirability of improving stocks as soon as they can.

Mr. Osborne: In view of the fact that the cattle breeders in Jamaica are doing a lot of this work themselves with very satisfactory results in Jamaica, since Jamaica is not paying it own way, is it not better to let the people do the job?

Mr. Creech Jones: It happens that the agricultural department give advice and help to the stock breeders.

Mr. Skinnard: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this problem of the pen keepers association has meant that a demand for the appointment has arisen?

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA (ARRESTS)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will cause further inquiries to be made into the circumstances of the arrest and sentence


within three hours on 17th February at Akoko District, Nigeria, of 82 elderly men arising out of their repudiation of the Oba of Olishua because of his alleged oppression; and why the requested transfer of these cases to magistrates of the Supreme Court was not allowed.

Mr. Creech Jones: I have asked the Acting Governor for information and will write to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Sorensen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these men are now serving a sentence of a year simply because they refused to recognise the Oba of Olishua whom they accused of oppression? Does not the whole matter require very careful investigation?

Mr. Creech Jones: The matter is receiving investigation. I do not know that I can do anything more in this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Agrarian Bill

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what opportunities are being provided for African members of the Kenya Legislative Council to have knowledge of the proposals for improving European agriculture as described in the Agrarian Bill before the Bill comes before the Legislative Council.

Mr. Creech Jones: The Agrarian Bill has not yet been drafted, but a memorandum describing the proposed substance of the Bill has been made available to all members of the Legislative Council, including the African members.

African Farmers (Aid)

Mr. H. D. Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proposals are envisaged for the provision of cheap finance and other assistance for African farmers in Kenya comparable to the measures proposed to aid European farmers under the new Agrarian Bill.

Mr. Creech Jones: A Committee is at present considering the ways and means of providing agricultural credit for African farmers.

Mr. Hughes: Is it not the case that these proposals only came before the African members of the Legislative Council long

after the proposal had appeared in the Press as the result of my right hon. Friend's discussion with the European farmers? Will he see that what funds are available for agricultural development are fairly shared between the communities according to need?

Mr. Creech Jones: My hon. Friend must appreciate that the whole system under which the African peasant works is fundamentally different from the system in regard to European agriculture and stock-breeding, and consequently the proposals which are made relate to the specific problems of European farming and do not necessarily apply to African farming. The suggestions which have been made by the Government are in the hands of the Africans through their representatives on public bodies.

Racial Discrimination

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that racial discrimination in hotels and restaurants is still widespread in Kenya; and if he will request the Government of Kenya to consider following the precedent set in Nigeria, where licences are refused to hotels imposing a colour bar.

Mr. Creech Jones: The Government of Kenya are doing what is possible and practicable to break down colour discrimination in the Colony. It is not considered that the introduction of legislation on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend would at present be the best line of advance.

Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great harm which is being done by this continuing affront, which is very deeply resented by educated Africans in particular?

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir, and I discussed the whole of the question with the Governor of Kenya when I was in Nairobi the other day. I hope some progress will be made.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL EXHIBITION

Gold Coast Police (Guard of Honour)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what opportunities he is providing for the public to see the detachment of the Gold Coast police now in this country.

Mr. Creech Jones: The detachment, which provided an informal guard of honour when His Majesty The King inaugurated Colonial Month on the 21st June, has come to this country to take part in the exhibition "Focus on Colonial Progress." The men can be seen on duty at the exhibition in Oxford Street daily.

Mr. Keeling: Could not the right hon. Gentleman give the public other opportunities to see these fine figures of men who have a fine record in war and peace? Can he say how long they will be in the country?

Mr. Creech Jones: It may be that the period of their stay here must come to an end within a week or so, but they have been fully employed at the exhibition apart from one or two other duties which they have undertaken. We are most anxious that the public should have every facility for meeting them, and in a number of cases we have been able to provide that.

Mr. Awbery: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the general satisfaction and pleasure expressed by the public at the methods adopted to present to the people the development in the Colonies during the past few years, and will he take steps to extend the duration of the Colonial Exhibition?

Mr. Creech Jones: That is another problem which is full of practical difficulties.

Stewards

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies for how many hours a day the colonial stewards, specially recruited for the Colonial Exhibition, are on duty; and at what rates of pay.

Mr. Creech Jones: All the colonial stewards are volunteers. They are normally on duty for single periods of four hours, though in some cases they have volunteered to do two periods, amounting to eight hours in all. An honorarium of 5s. for each four-hour period of duty is paid to the stewards for out-of-pocket expenses.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Service Engagements

Commander Noble: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many ratings and other ranks of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines completed their first period of service during the past 12 months; how many have not signed on to complete their time for pension; and of these how many were chief and petty officers and equivalent ranks.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): During the 12 months ending 30th June, 1949, 4,249 Naval ratings and other ranks of the Royal Marines, including 2,932 chief and petty officers and equivalent ranks, will complete their first period of continuous service. According to reports so far received in the Admiralty, 2,849 of these, including 1,860 chief and petty officers and equivalent ranks, have not signed on to complete time for pension, and have taken their discharge. In a substantial number of cases reports of the men's decision to sign on to complete time for pension or to take their discharge have not yet reached the Admiralty.

Commander Noble: Can the Minister tell us what steps are being taken in view of this very serious situation? As one step, would he consider paying a gratuity of £100 to the man who stays in after his first period of service instead of paying it, as under the present arrangements, to the man who goes out?

Mr. Dugdale: We are considering a number of possible alternatives, and the one which has been mentioned by the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be taken into account along with many others. I hope that we may get some results.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: In view of the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman, does he recall that in the Debate on the Navy Estimates I suggested that the Admiralty might consider the American scheme of shorter periods of re-engagement and that during the Report stage he said that he would consider the point? Has he come to a conclusion yet?

Mr. Dugdale: That is one of the points which is being specifically considered along with the others which I mentioned.

Sir Ronald Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is an extremely alarming situation in which these men, who are absolutely the key men in the Fleet, are going out after having learnt their seamanship and the arts of naval warfare? Is it not essential to take steps to make careers in the Navy attractive to these men?

Mr. Dugdale: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we have one difficulty which was not experienced before the war, namely, that we have full employment now, which was unknown before the war.

Commander Galbraith: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any estimate of the cost of replacing a man leaving at the completion of his first period of service?

Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir, not without notice.

Commander Maitland: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's claim that the reason is full employment, is it not truer to say that this indicates the complete failure of the new pay code and the conditions behind it?

Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir, certainly not.

Commander Noble: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many ratings and other ranks of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines will complete their first period of service of 12 years in 1949, 1950 and 1951, respectively.

Mr. Dugdale: During 1949, 4,271 Naval ratings and other ranks of the Royal Marines will complete their first period of continuous service. For 1950 the figure will be 5,588 and for 1951, 7,069.

Commander Noble: In view of these figures which in the light of the reply to the previous Question make the matter look even more serious unless some improvement can be obtained, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether we have yet reached the position of not being able to man ships for either home or foreign service because of this problem?

Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir, we have not.

Sir R. Ross: In view of the terrifying shortage of what used to be described as prime seamen, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps, whatever may be his

views about the cause of it, to see that the Fleet is kept efficient by retaining key men in it?

Mr. Dugdale: Certainly, Sir. As I have said, we are examining every possible method we can because we realise the seriousness of it and we are determined to get an adequate number of fully trained men.

Ordnance Inspection Officers

Commander Maitland: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will now make a statement regarding improved pay and allowances for officers serving in the Department of the Chief Inspector of Naval Ordnance.

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the recommendations made by the Madden Committee in regard to the conditions of service of officers in the Naval Ordnance Inspection Department have now been accepted.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): I cannot at present make any statement regarding improved salary scales for the officers serving in the Naval Ordnance Inspection Department, but I am hopeful that revised salary scales for these officers will now be settled shortly.

Commander Maitland: Is it not really disgraceful that there should be this continual delay? It has been going on now for years. Is it not just plain dishonesty by the Government to have enticed these men into this job and not to have fulfilled the promises made to them? May I also ask why the Civil Lord is answering this Question? Has the Parliamentary Secretary run out of answers after the many times he has been answering this subject, including an Adjournment Debate? Why has it now been turned over to the Civil Lord?

Mr. Edwards: The answer to the second part of the supplementary question is that the Civil Lord has always answered these Questions. He certainly answered the Question on the last occasion, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman will see if he looks at HANSARD. As to the suggestion of dishonesty, there is nothing dishonest about this. The Government are trying to settle this matter in a fair and proper way, and consideration


tion must take some time because not only the Admiralty, but other Departments have to be consulted.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the salary scales of some of these officers today are lower than they were in 1931, and will he expedite the remedying of this very unfortunate state of affairs?

Mr. Edwards: I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we are doing everything possible to expedite it and we are a little bit more than hopeful that something definite will be announced within two or three weeks.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Madden Committee recommended a substantial increase in the rates of pay and improved conditions in this very important branch of the service?

Mr. Edwards: The Madden Committee certainly made recommendations among which were improved rates of pay for the Department. Obviously that has to receive consideration in the Government.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Is it not the case that the Madden Committee reported 18 months ago, making these recommendations, and that the Civil Lord has now given the House an answer which is even less optimistic than the answers he was giving three months ago?

Mr. Edwards: I have not given a less optimistic answer. What I said was that we are going into the question as quickly as we possibly can and that we hope to give something definite within two or three weeks' time.

Commander Galbraith: Is it not the case that this matter has been under active consideration by the Government for four years? Will the hon. Gentleman really do something about it now?

Mr. Edwards: That is what we are doing.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: In view of the unsatisfactory state of affairs, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Air Training Elgin (Accidents)

Sir Stanley Reed: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what was the number of fatal accidents which occurred at the air training establishment in Elgin in 1948, and in 1949 to the latest available date.

Mr. Dugdale: I regret that it would be contrary to long-established policy to give the information requested.

Sir S. Reed: Will the Parliamentary Secretary look into this matter and at a later stage give an assurance that there is not an undue proportion of fatalities in this training centre, and will he give a further assurance that the number of fatalities that have occurred have not arisen as a result of dual operational control in that area?

Mr. Dugdale: Yes, I can certainly give that assurance.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing these figures for the whole of the Naval air service in addition to one station?

Mr. Dugdale: No, I would not. As I have said, it is contrary to established policy to publish them generally and in individual cases.

Royal Naval Reserve (Reconstitution)

Mr. Hollis: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what is the policy of his Department with regard to resuming grants of commissions to suitably-qualified professional Merchant Navy officers.

Mr. Dugdale: I am glad to inform the House that following discussions with the Ministry of Transport and representatives of the shipowners and of the officers' and men's organisations, it has been decided to reconstitute the General Service Section of the Royal Naval Reserve and it is hoped that recruiting will re-open in the near future.
In reconstituting this Reserve the Admiralty have had in mind the importance of not imparing the efficiency of the Merchant Navy in time of war. Royal Naval Reservists will not be withdrawn from the Merchant Navy except with the agreement of the Ministry of Transport, who have however, undertaken to release these Reservists to the Royal Navy as soon as possible.
In conclusion I would add that the Patrol Service section of the Royal Naval Reserve has also been reconstituted.

Mr. Hollis: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what are the numbers involved?

Mr. Dugdale: Yes, the establishment we propose to have will be: General Service, 1,400 officers and 2,000 ratings, and Patrol Service, 600 officers and 2,000 ratings.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this decision, which it has taken a long time to reach, will be received with a great sense of relief by the country as a whole?

Captain Marsden: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary how much training is it suggested these officers should have over any given period? Are they to go straight in and be given R.N.R. commissions, or have they to qualify and in subsequent years to undergo a further period of training?

Mr. Dugdale: That will be worked out in due course and I can let the hon. and gallant Gentleman know later.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: In view of the long period that has been taken in arriving at this decision, can the Minister assure the House that full particulars of the scheme will be promulgated in the various shipping companies?

Mr. Dugdale: Most certainly, and that was why I was anxious that it should be announced in Parliament before it was announced anywhere else.

Sir R. Ross: In view of the particulars given by the right hon. Gentleman, will the conditions generally be similar to those that were in force before the war?

Mr. Dugdale: As I say, we have not worked out in detail what the conditions will be, and I would prefer to await the final working-out before making a definite announcement.

Discharged Personnel (Tuberculosis)

Mr. Sparks: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what was the number of personnel discharged from the Navy suffering from tuberculosis

in 1947 and subsequent years; and whether such discharged personnel receive X-ray examinations at the time their medical unfitness for further service is determined.

Mr. Dugdale: As the answer to the first part of the Question contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. With regard to the second part of the Question, all who are under treatment for tuberculosis are given progressive X-ray examinations prior to the decision to invalid them.

Mr. Sparks: Would my right hon. Friend say whether naval personnel may at their own request receive an X-ray examination at such time as they suspect that they may be affected by this disease?

Mr. Dugdale: They do; they are always examined.

Mr. Sparks: At their own request?

Mr. Dugdale: Yes, they could be examined at their own request now.

Mr. Awbery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are men being discharged without an X-ray examination at present who afterwards discover that they are suffering from T.B.? If they make a claim, will he accept liability?

Mr. Dugdale: That is quite another question. We should have to consider individual cases.

Following is the answer:


—
1947


Pulmonary
Non-Pulmonary
Total


Male
…
1,436
57
1,493


Female
…
65
13
78


Total
…
1,501
70
1,571


—
1948


Male
…
971
63
1,034


Female
…
34
2
36


Total
…
1,005
65
1,070


—
1949 (up to 31st May)


Male
…
346
15
361


Female
…
5
1
6


Total
…
351
16
367

Prize Money

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has any further statement to make concerning the issue of prize money.

Mr. Dugdale: It is estimated that up to the end of last week about 430,000 applications had been received at the Admiralty. The qualifying service of many of the applicants has been confirmed and payment is beginning at once. It will inevitably take many months to dispose of all the claims. I am glad to be able to take an opportunity to inform the House that the result of the latest calculations has enabled my noble Friend to fix £4 4s. instead of the £4 stated in the Press as the value of a unit share of prize money.

Mr. Thomas: Although the increase is a small one, we welcome it. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware how gratified we feel that he took the advice of the mathematicians behind me who, during the passage of the Navy Prize Bill, maintained that if he went back to the till, further money could be found? Is this a final decision or is there a chance of a further examination and still more money being found?

Mr. Dugdale: Much as I would like to give the credit to the hon. Gentleman's statisticians, I must give it to the Admiralty's statisticians. We always said the amount would be about £4, and it is four guineas. I may add for the interest of the House that the first remittances will be despatched tonight.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES

Contributory Pensions Scheme (Widows)

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of Defence what steps are being taken or will be taken to improve the position of existing widows and that of those who become widows prior to the inception of the contributory pensions scheme for the Armed Forces.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): While making no commitments I have already undertaken to review some of the regulations governing the existing widows pension scheme in the light of the new contributory scheme when that has been worked out. But as regards the rates of pensions payable

under the existing scheme I am afraid I can only repeat that that is a matter which must be governed by pensions increase legislation. The Government have taken the view that any increases in basic pensions should, in future, be on a contributory basis and I cannot therefore hold out any hopes of increases for existing widows as a result of the introduction of the new scheme.

Sir I. Fraser: Can the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that existing widows are to have their rates assimilated to the proposed new rates?

Mr. Alexander: I have said that an alteration of rates is not a matter for me at all; it is a matter to be dealt with through the ordinary channel of legislation for general pensions increase. The Pensions (Increase) Act applies to all kinds of pensions, and any matter of that kind must be dealt with through the usual channel.

Commander Noble: But could not the Minister say whether this is to be legislation for the future or for the present widow?

Mr. Alexander: I have indicated that the contributory pensions scheme as a whole is for the future, but I have also undertaken that in regard to the existing scheme we will look into the regulations from the point of view of one or two specific points raised by hon. Members, such as the age of the widow, and things of that kind.

Mr. J. L. Williams: asked the Minister of Defence whether the contributory pension scheme for the widows and other dependants of members of the Armed Forces will be compulsory; and when the details of the scheme may be issued.

Mr. Alexander: As I stated on 11th May, the new contributory scheme is being worked out as quickly as possible; a great deal of work is involved. I will make a comprehensive statement as soon as the scheme is ready: in the meantime, as I am sure hon. Members will appreciate, it is difficult for me to discuss particular points.

Mr. Williams: Will the Minister bear in mind in this connection the demand for a flat-rate pension for the next of kin of former Service men?

Mr. Alexander: I do not know the exact extent of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. Perhaps he will let me know what he has in mind.

Demobilisation (Clothing)

Mr. Elwyn Jones: asked the Minister of Defence what sums a member of His Majesty's Forces is obliged to pay on demobilisation for articles of uniform he is permitted to retain; and what the estimated cost to the Exchequer would be if demobilised members of His Majesty's Forces were permitted to retain such articles of clothing without payment.

Mr. Alexander: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the articles of clothing which National Service men are permitted to retain when they are released, together with the prices charged. If this clothing were issued free to all such men the estimated cost in the current financial year would be approximately £750,000.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: In view of the comparatively small amount involved, would it not be an excellent gesture to these demobilised ex-Service men to enable them to retain their partly worn clothing? There is a good deal of feeling about this amongst demobilised men, and surely it is an occasion which calls for a handsome gesture?

Mr. Alexander: As a matter of fact only about 30 per cent. have asked to have the clothing. We are not anxious to issue more of this clothing for two reasons. First we do not want a widespread use of Service uniform in private life. Secondly, we want to use the clothing as it comes in after service as much as possible because of the difficulty and cost of getting new stocks. A further point is that in view of the numbers asking for it, if we adopted the suggestion of my hon. Friend I think we should be issuing a large number of articles of clothing to people who would never afterwards use them.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: While we agree that it is most desirable that these men should have under-clothing, is it not most undesirable that battledress should be used by civilians, since one does not know whether it is a civilian wearing battledress or a badly turned out soldier, and that brings the Army into disrepute?

Mr. McGovern: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a boy in my constituency had £2 5s. 0d. deducted from his pay because, in order to go home, he had to retain for the purpose of decency a battledress nearly two years in service? Does not the Minister think that in view of the fact that civilian clothing is being refused, this kind of action is inclined to endanger the dignity of the Service, of the country and of the Government?

Mr. Alexander: I should say that the figure mentioned by my hon. Friend would seem to be for more than the actual battledress, but I would like to discuss that matter.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: Would not the Minister's point about not wishing to allow Service dress to be worn generally be met by the issue of free civilian clothing to all men on demobilisation? Would he not reconsider his attitude on that?

Mr. Alexander: I have already dealt with that in answer to a Question on 6th April, as the hon. Member knows. It would cost something over £1½ million a year, and I cannot promise to do that.

Mr. Chetwynd: Does the calculation of my hon. Friend include the garments that men are allowed to retain free of charge?

Mr. Alexander: Yes.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would not the Minister consider having battledresses dyed before issuing them? That would get over the difficulty.

Mr. Alexander: Many are so dyed.

Following is the list:


ARTICLES OF CLOTHING PERMITTED TO BE RETAINED BY RELEASED NATIONAL SERVICE MEN



Charge


All Services
£
s.
d.


Pair of shoes, shirt, tie and underclothes and socks, in possession at time of release
Free


Navy





*Greatcoat
1
5
9


Uniform suit:





(a) if dressed as seamen

13
6


(b) if not dressed as seamen
1
3
0


Army





*Greatcoat
1
18
9


Battledress
1
12
0






Royal Air Force





*Greatcoat
1
18
0


Battledress
1
12
0


*National Service men are at present allowed to retain a greatcoat during the winter months only. The estimated annual cost (£750,000) of free issues of Service clothing assumes that all such men would be issued with a greatcoat irrespective of the time of release.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Vitamins, Scotland

Major Guy Lloyd: asked the Minister of Food what proportion of mothers in Scotland are taking up the free or cheap allowances of orange juice, cod liver oil and vitamin pills; and what is happening to the unwanted stocks.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summer-skill): About 25 per cent. of the total amounts of orange juice, cod liver oil and vitamin tablets which mothers are entitled to receive for themselves or for their children are taken up. There are no unwanted stocks since supplies are closely correlated to actual demands.

Trading Accounts

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Food if he will explain the difference of the detailed items on pages 24 to 44 in the Trading Accounts and Balance Sheets 1947–48 (49) referring to commissions and expenses of agents and distributors which total £23,423,747 and the amount on page 50 of £12,684,640 in the consolidated balance sheet.

Dr. Summerskill: As the reply to the hon. Member's Question contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir W. Smithers: May I ask the right hon. Lady whether her accounts really are correct or whether my total is wrong?

Dr. Summerskill: I think the hon. Gentleman has made a few miscalculations, but if he follows my answer carefully and consults the relevant pages he will find that there is no discrepancy.

Following is the reply:

The figure of £23,423,747 includes the two items of remuneration and expenses of milk distributors on page 34 of the accounts which appear separately

as "Milk Distribution Expenses £12,619,604" on the Consolidated Trading Account. It also excludes the sum of £1,753,894 on page 46 and the fee of £126,603 shown on page 34 as being paid to the Milk Marketing Board.

Fish Landings, Lowestoft

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that on 20th June Skipper J. R. C. Reader landed 495 stones of dabs at Lowestoft only one-third of which were sold at 4s. a stone and that the remainder were sent to the farmers for manure at 2d. a stone, whereas the same class of fish was being sold in Ipswich at 14s. a stone; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that good fish is not thrown away for manure but sold at the proper price to the advantage of the consuming public.

Dr. Summerskill: On 20th June, 360 stones of fish, out of about 6,500 stones landed at Lowestoft, were not sold and were sent away for manure. This fish, which included a part of Skipper Reader's catch, was mostly small and thin dabs, for which there is little demand. The fish on sale in Ipswich at the maximum retail price may have come from other ports and were, presumably, of better size and quality. While we are anxious that distributors should pass on to the public the benefits of any reduction in the first-hand price, there is no practicable way of enforcing them to do so.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the practice now is to see that at least the best of the fish is being distributed at a cheaper price, and can she assure the House that her Department is not continuing to follow the good old Tory policy of throwing the surplus away?

Dr. Summerskill: I should have thought it was quite clear to my hon. Friend that we do not follow the Tory policy—he should know—that and I should say that sometimes his conclusions are a little hasty and that he should ascertain his facts more carefully. As he has studied this matter, perhaps he will give me the benefit of his information and tell me how we can compel retailers to reduce the price?

Mr. Stokes: We certainly cannot compel the retailer. I am talking about the right hon. Lady's Department. Her information is altogether different from that


which I have had from Skipper Reader, who has explained exactly what the fish is like, and what he says does not in the least resemble what the right hon. Lady says.

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that Skipper Reader is quite comfortable. I understand that he will realise over £1,000 from this catch.

Mr. Scollan: Would the right hon. Lady say whether anything is being done to reconsider the whole matter of the sale and distribution of fish in the ports, as the method which has operated has always been very unsatisfactory?

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman knows that we are always considering this matter and that we have very recently made a great alteration in it.

Mr. Stokes: In view of the right hon. Lady's impertinent reply, may I ask whether there is any justification whatever for throwing fish away merely because——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must remember that Erskine May says that epithets and controversial or offensive expressions are out of Order.

Hon. Members: Withdraw!

Mr. Stokes: I will certainly withdraw, but the right hon. Lady should not cry stinking fish.

Animals (Slaughter)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Food how many animals were slaughtered last year with and without the humane killer of each variety separately; and how many were killed by electric stunning.

Dr. Summerskill: 1,693,603 cattle, 1,291,958 calves, 5,692,404 sheep and 108,591 pigs were slaughtered in 1948 in slaughterhouses used by my Department. 932,409 pigs were slaughtered in bacon factories. Of these all but about 80,000 cattle, 40,000 calves and 144,000 sheep were killed with the humane killer or by electric stunning. I regret that the numbers slaughtered, by the humane killer as distinct from electric stunning are not separately recorded.

Mr. Freeman: In view of the very large number of animals that are killed without

the humane slaughter methods, and the fact that the R.S.P.C.A. and other organisations are offering to provide captive bolt pistols free to farmers and others who are prepared to use them, would the right hon. Lady say what further steps can be taken to see that all animals are killed by humane methods, as recommended by this House?

Dr. Summerskill: Certainly, we have taken steps and we gave instructions in March, 1948, but I must remind my hon. Friend that some animals are killed by the Jewish and Mohammedan methods, the practice of which we do not control.

Brigadier Rayner: Does the right hon. Lady realise that our abattoir system involves a great deal of thoughtless cruelty and is something of a disgrace to a civilised country?

Dr. Summerskill: Certainly not. Since the Labour Government have been in power conditions in the abattoirs have greatly improved.

Mr. Osborne: Can the right hon. Lady assure the House that these humane killers are used by her own party to get rid of their rebels?

Sweets

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Food whether, before sweets were de-rationed, his Department carried out any survey to ascertain potential consumer demand.

Dr. Summerskill: No such survey was carried out by my Department. But the manufacturers have always operated consumer surveys, and the information derived from recent surveys appeared to indicate that with the higher quantity of ingredients which we could give them they would be able to meet the demand at present prices.

Mr. Albu: In view of the apparently unsatisfactory nature of the survey, and also of the changing nature of the demands and the distribution of national income, would my right hon. Friend in future consider using the services of the Social Survey before de-rationing any further commodities?

Dr. Summerskill: We always use the service which we think is appropriate.

Linseed Oil

Colonel Hutchison: asked the Minister of Food what price he has paid for linseed oil under the Argentine Agreement; and what are the current prices for the same commodity in the United States of America and Canada.

Dr. Summerskill: The Argentine Agreement will not stipulate the prices to be paid for linseed oil. These will be negotiated separately. The present price per ton of oil in United States of America is equivalent to about £155 and in Canada to about £90.

Colonel Hutchison: Would the right hon. Lady expect that the prices will be at least as favourable to the users of linseed oil in this country as in other countries, as they have not been up to now?

Dr. Summerskill: I would not like to anticipate what they will be.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALGERIAN WINE (PRICE)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food how much Algerian wine he bought; at what price; how much has been sold; and at what price.

Dr. Summerskill: I can add nothing to the answer given on 21st March to Questions put down by the hon. Member and by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis). The Ministry's selling price of Algerian wine is now approximately 7s.6d. per gallon in bond, including wood.

Sir W. Smithers: Is it not a fact that this Algerian wine has gone sour and is unpalatable, like the Government?

Dr. Summerskill: We have been informed that the wine has improved, like the Government.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: In view of that reply, can the right hon. Lady indicate to the House what percentage of the wine is now being consumed?

Dr. Summerskill: I could not give that figure.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS (WAGES CLAIM)

Mr. Oliver Stanley: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any statement to make about the decision of the National Union of Railwaymen to put into force a "Go Slow" campaign on the railways at midnight on Sunday next.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I am in touch with the parties but I regret I am not in a position to make a statement today.

Mr. Stanley: Obviously no one in this House would desire to press the right hon. Gentleman for a statement before he is ready to make one, but I am sure he will recognise the great anxiety, not only of hon. Members of this House, but of the public as a whole, that he should keep the House and the public in touch with developments by making a statement as soon as possible.

Mr. Isaacs: Yes. I can definitely give that undertaking. Of course we are all concerned, everyone is concerned, about this decision, but I am in touch with the parties about what is going on and, if the right hon. Gentleman puts down a Question tomorrow, I will try to give him definite information.

Mr. Gallacher: May I ask the Minister if on this occasion he will refrain from trying to associate the Communists with anything that has happened and realise that the demand for 10s. a week is a legitimate demand and that if it is granted everything will go on nicely and smoothly?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

The House divided: Ayes, 221: Noes, 92.

Division No. 195.]
AYES
[3.32 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Awbery, S. S.
Barton, C.


Albu, A. H.
Ayles, W. H.
Battley, J. R.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Bechervaise, A. E.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Bacon, Mist A.
Benson, G.


Alpass, J. H.
Balfour, A.
Beswick, P.


Attewell, H. C.
Barstow, P. G.
Binns, J.




Blyton, W. R.
Hubbard, T.
Proctor, W. T.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Pryde, D. J.


Bramall, E. A.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Randall, H. E.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Ranger, J.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Rankin, J.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Richards, R.


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, R. H.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Callaghan, James
John, W.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Carmichael, James
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Castle Mrs. B. A.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Royle, C.


Champion, A. J.
Keenan, W.
Scollan, T.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Segal, Dr. S.


Cluse, W. S.
Kinley, J.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Cocks, F. S.
Kirby, B. V.
Sharp, Granville


Coldrick, W.
Lang, G.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Calman, Miss G. M.
Lavers, S.
Shurmer, P.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Cooper, G.
Leonard, W.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Leslie, J. R.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Cove, W. G.
Lever, N. H.
Skinnard, F. W.


Cullen, Mrs.
Levy, B. W.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Daggar, G.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Solley, L. J.


Daines, P.
Lindgren, G. S.
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Lipson, D. L.
Sparks, J. A.


Davies, Edward (Burstem)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Stokes, R. R.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Logan, D. G.
Stross, Dr. B.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Longden, F.
Stubbs, A. E.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McAdam, W.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McAllister, G.
Swingler, S.


Deer, G.
McEntee, V. La. T.
Sylvester, G. O.


Dobbie, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Symonds, A. L.


Dodds, N. N.
McGovern, J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Driberg, T. E. N.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
McKinlay, A. S.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
McLeavy, F.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Thurtle, Ernest


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Mann, Mrs. J.
Timmons, J.


Farthing, W. J.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Titterington, M. F.


Fernyhough, E.
Mellish, R. J.
Tolley, L.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Follick, M.
Mitchison, G. R.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Forman, J. C.
Monslow, W.
Walker, G. H.


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Moody, A. S.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Morley, R.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Gallacher, W.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Walls, P. L. (Faversham)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
West, D. G.


Gibbins, J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edin'gh, E.)


Gitzean, A.
Mort, D. L.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Nally, W.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Grenfell, D. R.
Naylor, T. E.
Wilkes, L.


Grey, C. F.
Neat, H. (Claycross)
Wilkins, W. A.


Grierson, E.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Noel-Baker, Capt F. E. (Brentford)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Oldfield, W. H.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Hardy, E. A.
Parker, J.
Willis, E.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Parkin, B. T.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Wyatt, W.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pearson, A.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Hobson, C. R.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)



Holman, P.
Popplewell, E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Mr. Collindridge and Mr. Bowden.


Hoy, J.
Porter, G. (Leeds)





NOES


Agnew, Cmdr, P. G.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)


Baxter, A. B.
De la Bère, R.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Gridley, Sir A.


Birch, Nigel
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Grimston, R. V.


Boothby, R.
Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Drewe, C.
Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Haughton, Colonel S. G. (Antrim)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Duthie, W. S.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Bullock, Capt. M.
Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Hogg, Hon. Q.


Butcher, H. W.
Erroll, F. J.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)


Carson, E.
Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Hutchison, Lt-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)







Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Osborne, C.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Pete, Brig. C. H. M.
Studholme, H. G.


Keeling, E. H.
Pickthorn, K.
Sutcliffe, H.


Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Teeling, William


Langford-Holt, J.
Raikes, H. V.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ramsay, Maj. S.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
Touche, G. C.


Low, A. R. W.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Lucas, Major Sir J.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Vane, W. M. F.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Ross, Sir R. O. (Londonderry)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Savory, Prof. D. L.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


McFariane, C. S.
Scott, Lord W.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


MacLeod, J.
Shephard, S. (Newark)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.



Marsden, Capt. A.
Smithers, Sir W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Snadden, W. M.
Brigadier Mackeson and


Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Spence, H. R.
Colonel Wheatley.

Orders of the Day — AIRWAYS CORPORATIONS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.40 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
In asking the House to give a Second Reading to the Bill, may I first call attention to the fact there are no political issues in the Measure? I notice that hon. Gentlemen opposite have indicated on the Order Paper that they intend to divide against the Bill, but I hope that the discussion will not be on a party political basis but on the basis of how best to do a job of work, how best to organise our long-distance overseas transport air services. All those who have any responsibility for airline operation are in favour of this Bill; not only that, they ask for it to be given legislative effect at the earliest possible moment. The boards of B.O.A.C. and B.S.A.A. are in favour of the Bill, and those boards are composed of business men—men who prior to coming into association with civil air transport were and in some cases still are associated with successful private enterprise, men who, if they have any political affiliations, are much more akin to hon. Gentlemen opposite than they are to my own political affiliations.

Air-Commodore Harvey: How does the hon. Gentleman know?

Mr. Lindgren: Only from their previous associations, and from the fact of having met them only since I have been connected with air transport. I have never met them at Labour Party conferences or at the T.U.C., where I usually find most of my friends.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The only chief executive of any air corporation who has sought Parliamentary honours stood as a Liberal.

Mr. Lindgren: The best politicians are very often outside Parliament, not in it.
Further, all the trade unions representing workers in the industry are in favour of the Bill, and ask the House to give it a Second Reading.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Including the Aeronautical Engineers Association?

Mr. Lindgren: It is being very kind to call them a trade union. Every trade union recognised by the trade union movement supports this Bill. In referring to the A.E.A. I do not wish to be offensive; that is the last thing one would wish to do in seeking to secure a Second Reading for the Bill, but in trade union circles we have a phrase; it is a "goose club"; it is not a trade union, and it is not recognised as such.

Colonel Hutchison: To be fair to this union, is it not the case that they represent the majority of the ground staff of the three Corporations?

Mr. Lindgren: By no means. By far the greatest number of engineers in the Corporations are members of the A.E.U. The A.E.A. does claim to have the greater proportion of membership in B.S.A.A. but the A.E.U. retort that it is a paper membership, not a paying membership. I have no details to challenge the facts one way or the other, but according to the A.E.U., once a member of the A.E.A. always a member, whether one pays one's subscription or not. Everyone who is associated with air transport who knows anything about airline operation, the work to be done, the aircraft that are available or the routes to be served, are in favour of this Bill. I ask the House to remember these plain straightforward facts when dealing with this Measure.
Having made those preliminary observations, may I set what I hope will be an example by making a detailed and analytical case in favour of the Second Reading of the Bill? The Civil Aviation Act, 1946, established three air Corporations, and it did so for the purpose of giving an opportunity for some sort of competition between the Corporations. All that this Bill does is to amalgamate B.O.A.C. and B.S.A.A. into one Corporation. No change whatever is proposed, nor is there intended to be a change, in the status of B.E.A., which will continue its separate existence. The provisions of the Bill do not amend the Civil Aviation Act, 1946, in any way other than in bringing together B.O.A.C. and B.S.A.A.
The Government's White Paper, Command 6712 of 1945, announced the


Government's policy for British air services. The original decision was, as I have just mentioned, to have the three Corporations. That decision was largely based on the fact that this was a young industry and there was a desire to create flexibility of approach to its problems. It was considered that three Corporations helped in that direction. They offered independence of approach to the form or organisation and techniques of operation and promoted a healthy rivalry one with the other while at the same time avoiding the worst effects of destructive competition.
It was recognised that while the policy might have advantages there might also be disadvantages, and that in the light of the experience gained the Government would then decide the policy they would pursue. I should make it quite clear that at no time was the three-Corporation structure of the industry regarded as necessarily permanent. The Lord President of the Council, in the Second Reading Debate on the Civil Aviation Act on 6th May, 1946, went out of his way to explain that there was no particular virtue in three Corporations, that it was the principle which we felt was correct at the time, but that they might prove to be too few or too many, and that in the light of the experience gained over a period any arrangements necessary would be made to bring about a more effective or efficient organisation.
We have had two years' experience, which have taught us much about forms of organisation, conduct of management, techniques of operation and commercial methods required to conduct successful airline operation. The aircraft, the route organisation requirements, commercial methods, traffic organisation, training and maintenance arrangements and many other features are similar for B.O.A.C. and B.S.A.A. Both are long-distance operators, operating to the Western Hemisphere with four-engined aircraft. Such conditions naturally pose the question whether closer integration would make for greater efficiency and more economical working.
B.E.A. have a totally different type of operation—internal and short-distance Continental operation. They operate with twin-engined aircraft, their aircraft requirements and traffic handling requirements are different, and they have totally different problems to face. Accordingly

the Government have no intention of amalgamating B.E.A. with the new Corporation to be formed, B.O.A.C. There will still be two Corporations. May I emphasise this point, because there have been indications in the Press that it is the intention of the Government to amalgamate B.E.A. with B.O.A.C. That is not the intention of the Government at the present time.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Or the management?

Mr. Lindgren: Or the management. There are two Corporations. They are operating under two totally different sets of conditions. They have different spheres in which to operate, and the technique of operation is different. Of course, if at some later date aircraft arrangements and production change, and it becomes possible or necessary to amalgamate, that would be something to be discussed in the future; but under present operational conditions it is not intended to amalgamate B.E.A. with B.O.A.C.
After the experience gained under the three-Corporation structure of the industry and the routes operated and planned for the future development by B.O.A.C. and B.S.A.A. on the North and South Atlantic, my noble Friend some time ago—long before the Star Ariel was lost—considered the question whether or not economy and efficiency in the industry would be brought about by some closer co-operation or amalgamation of B.O.A.C. and B.S.A.A. The present and planned pattern of the routes of the two Corporations will, I hope, convince the House that some closer working is necessary. The B.O.A.C. trans-Atlantic services, operated with Constellations, are routed via Shannon Airport, or Prestwick, and Gander to New York, with an extension of certain New York services down to Bermuda. The B.S.A.A. planned their services by two other Atlantic routes; a South Atlantic route via Lisbon and Dakar to Brazil, the Argentine and Chile, and a mid-Atlantic route via the Azores and Bermuda to the Caribbean, Central America and the Northern Republics of South America. That was the different pattern of services of the two Corporations.
After the disappearance of the Star Tiger in February, 1948, in the long and difficult sector Azores-Bermuda, the


services to the Caribbean and Central America were re-routed via Shannon, or Prestwick, and Gander to Bermuda. Thus, when the Tudors were in operation, both Corporations were operating independently by a common trans-Atlantic route—London, Prestwick or Shannon, Gander, New York, Bermuda—although they were operating with different types of aircraft; B.O.A.C. with Constellations and B.S.A.A. with Tudors. I am sure that no one will seriously dispute that the aim must be to secure the maximum commercial use of capacity over common routes, and therefore economy in the actual use of the number of aircraft required.
There is also another problem, that of flexibility of aircraft requirements to deal with variations from area to area in regard to seasonal changes. North and South America give a very good example of it. In the handling of that seasonal traffic there should be that flexibility which is so desirable. One of the basic objects of all airline operators is to secure the maximum possible utilisation of aircraft throughout the year and to avoid seasonal peaks. Experience has shown that even when two different types of aircraft are operated over the same route by two different companies the amount of flexibility so necessary in airline operations, if one is to achieve the maximum effective use of available aircraft, is not present.
Another factor exercising the mind of my noble Friend was that the independent approach to problems, the healthy rivalry which the three-Corporation system was designed to establish, was in fact tending in some cases to produce independence in directions where closer co-ordination of the activities of the separate corporations was desirable; and where in fact it could have been closer without in any way affecting the essential commercial and operational independence of the two Corporations. Such cases would include passenger handling, transport between the town centre and the airport, catering, and other matters of that kind. These various considerations prompted my noble Friend last year to consider very seriously the advantages and disadvantages of the policy of amalgamation of B.O.A.C. and B.S.A.A.
I have outlined to the House some of the advantages becoming apparent as the

network of the services of the two Corporations were being developed. At that time, when my noble Friend was considering the question, however, the board of B.S.A.A. were looking forward to bringing the Tudors into operation, and they were definitely opposed to any amalgamation. If I may express a personal view, I have always advocated, and have represented to the various Ministers I have served, the desirability of more economic and efficient working by the amalgamation of the two organisations. But in view of all the circumstances the Minister felt at that time that amalgamation was not desirable.
B.O.A.C. had their special problems also. They were reorganising the Corporation. The work was going on in the very capable hands of Sir Miles Thomas, who was then deputy-chairman of the Corporation, and who will at the end of the month become chairman in succession to Sir Harold Hartley. This is the last opportunity which I at least, shall have to pay a tribute to Sir Harold Hartley in this House before he leaves the Corporation. On behalf of my noble Friend and myself I would say a word of very high praise to Sir Harold for the energy and enthusiasm he has brought to civil aviation since he came into it in 1946, first with B.E.A. and then with B.O.A.C. I think that the railway experience of Sir Harold, plus his scientific experience, has contributed largely to the success he has made in both Corporations, and everyone will join with me in wishing him well in his retirement.
B.O.A.C. were faced with other special problems. Within the next 12 or 18 months they had to bring in three new types of aircraft, the Stratocruisers, the Canadairs and Hermes. The bringing in of three new types of aircraft is a difficult operation, particularly when an attempt is being made to bring them in simultaneously. There are the questions of route development and organisation, maintenance organisation and all the "bugs" that arise with new aircraft. Without depreciating the industry in any way, no new aircraft has been brought into use in the world, which, in its initial stages, has not created some difficult operational problem. B.O.A.C. were faced with those difficulties, plus the fact that they had to withdraw from service a number of types which had become obsolete; and they had to do


that without disturbing their existing services.
Therefore, it was felt that there was a lot in favour of leaving the matters as they were in view of the reorganisation and the introduction of new types of aircraft. That was the view on the basic organisational side. Then it became necessary to withdraw the Tudors from service. This misfortune to B.S.A.A. and the consequential disruption of their planned programme of development left a big gap in British aircraft resources. B.S.A.A. were left without any modern aircraft over a competitive route to meet international competition which was of a high level, from foreign airlines using aircraft which were the most effective operational units in civil aviation.
We were confronted with the problem of replacing in the most efficient and economic way the capacity which had been lost by the withdrawal of the Tudors. I make it plain to the House that the disaster of the withdrawal of the Tudors was the decisive factor, although amalgamation had been under consideration for some time. Certain points were debatable and there were certain people who were much more in favour of the amalgamation than others. When there was a complete loss of the Tudors and there were no aircraft for B.S.A.A. to use, that was the deciding factor which brought about the decision to amalgamate the two Corporations. In the light of these circumstances, the Board of B.S.A.A. were the first to agree, in spite of their previous opposition, that not only was amalgamation desirable but it was the only possible attitude to take.
The six Constellations of B.O.A.C. and the six Stratocruisers to be delivered this year to that Corporation were the only aircraft available and in prospect with the necessary range and capacity to maintain a competitive regular service over the North Atlantic. Therefore, it was absolutely essential to consider amalgamation. To deal with immediate situation of the loss of the Tudors, there had to be a measure of interworking between B.O.A.C. and B.S.A.A. The six Constellations which B.O.A.C. were operating on the North Atlantic were deployed to take not only the B.O.A.C. North Atlantic traffic but the B.S.A.A. traffic across the North Atlantic for the Caribbean and the Southern American Republics. Traffic

for these areas is now being carried in that manner across the North Atlantic to New York and then to the Caribbean and Central America.
I turn to the future and the provision of further capacity required to replace the Tudors. The new plan of combined operations on the North Atlantic enables us to exploit to the greatest possible degree the aircraft resources available and to have a single fleet concentrated in as few types as possible. In that way we get the most economic use of the aircraft serving North America, the Caribbean and Central America. Flexibility in the use of capacity, and economy of aircraft requirements, can be secured in the way I have mentioned, by one Corporation, even where there are two Corporations, where one makes capacity available for the other over certain sections. If we are to get the most effective and efficient use from the aircraft, there must be a single management to undertake the responsibility of the deployment of the aircraft and their general utilisation.
The recent purchase of four additional Stratocruisers from the Scandinavian Airlines System is an important feature of this plan. It provides the necessary capacity as far as New York. At the end of this year there will be ten Stratocruisers plus the six Constellations which will provide the aircraft for the North Atlantic operation of the traffic of B.S.A.A. and B.O.A.C. It will provide for the North Atlantic traffic of B.O.A.C. and for the B.S.A.A. traffic which previously went right through to the Caribbean and Central America in its own aircraft. The latter will also go via New York, and then the stretch from there will be covered by B.S.A.A. with other aircraft.

Mr. George Ward: Does that mean that the Central and Southern Atlantic routes are to be permanently abandoned?

Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. There are two sectors in the operation of B.S.A.A. There is the Caribbean, the Central American States and the Northern Republics of South America. Traffic for those places used to go through the Azores and Bermuda. Now it will go across the North Atlantic to New York and then forward. There is also the old South Atlantic route by Lisbon and


Dakar and across from Buenos Aires to Santiago and up the west coast to Chile and Peru. That service will still be operated by different aircraft from this country.

Mr. Ward: This is most important. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that as a permanent arrangement all traffic to the Caribbean and South American States will be carried across the North Atlantic to New York first?

Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir. Traffic for the Caribbean and Central America will cross the North Atlantic to New York and then filter down. That is the only possible way.

Mr. Ward: This is a most important statement concerning a serious matter. If we are to abandon the traffic from Lisbon we shall lose a tremendous amount.

Mr. Lindgren: No. I thought I had made it clear. In addition there will be another route which will probably be followed by Canadairs. That route will be London, Lisbon, Dakar, Natal to Buenos Aires, across to Santiago and then up to the coast to Lima and the Carribean.
Then there is the matter that I could not deal with very well at Question time today. As the Stratocruisers come into operation and we have an effective payload over the Bermuda—Azores sector, then the North Atlantic Stratocruisers will probably do the circular tour to New York and return via Bermuda and the Azores to Lisbon and this country or vice versa. That is why this Bill is so essential. All these factors are determined by the aircraft available, and that depends on the amount of dollars we have to spend. There is no question of our being able to go into the open market to buy what we like where we like for the best and most effective use in airline operations. In the light of the resources available our Corporations have to do the best job they can, and I should like to say that they make a very good job of it.
In the first phase of the merger there will be a B.S.A.A. Division of B.O.A.C. in addition to the existing Western and Eastern Divisions of B.O.A.C. Economies will be brought about immediately in the use of fewer types of aircraft, in maintenance, and in the fact

that the previous artificial geographical separation of the spheres of the two Corporations will be combined. That will avoid overlapping and enable us to fill in certain gaps in the network of services. It will avoid duplication in the handling of traffic, traffic booking offices and certain other factors of that nature.
These will be economies, but I should make it quite clear that these economies are unlikely to result in appreciable savings in staff additional to the normal wastage which takes place as men and women leave the service. B.S.A.A. was in the process of building up to meet the needs of the Tudors which it was expected would come into service, but which unfortunately it was not possible to introduce. It was preparing for an expansion of its programme, and the new situation, rather than produce big reductions of staff, will in effect lead to greater capacity and better use of available aircraft, and the bringing together of the two Corporations will produce a greater capacity of airline operation.
In short, the emphasis is on producing more with the existing number of staff in both Corporations, rather than dismissals from either the one or the other. There may be certain redundancies, but, in my view, having studied the problem closely with both Corporations, these redundancies will be small, and we shall get a much higher productivity from them. As a measure of this increased productivity, it is estimated, in so far as such estimates can be made, and expressing them in terms of capacity ton miles, that the bringing together of the two Corporations will lead to an increase of 60 per cent. over the pre-amalgamation productivity. That is not entirely or only due to the amalgamation, because the introduction of modern types of aircraft with greater capacity of course brings about that result as well.
The first phase of the organisation is largely dictated by two main considerations. The first of these is to minimise the disruption during the coming into operation of the three new types of aircraft by B.O.A.C.—the Stratocruisers, Canadairs and Hermes. It is also determined by the present unavoidable dispersal of the Corporations operational and maintenance bases. This phase of the organisation will be progressively


followed by a modified form of greater devolution on a line basis of responsibility to lines which are responsible for providing aircraft and crews, and to areas, which both at home and abroad are responsible for the commercial exploitation of the services. There will be the line that provides the aircraft and crews, and the areas in which the commercial men will get busy in order to use to the fullest possible extent the aircraft capacity which is provided for them, and the overall direction from the centre at the headquarters level will be simplified and the present geographical executive form of organisation, both in B.O.A.C. and B.S.A.A., will disappear. This will be a period of expanding activity, during which, as in the first phase, economies will tend to be reflected by avoiding increases of staff rather than actual reductions of staff.
May I now turn to the Bill itself? It is unfortunately impossible to make a clean merger of these two Corporations by a single legislative action of this House. B.S.A.A. have various operating rights, contracts and permits in South American countries which, I am advised, cannot be transferred to B.O.A.C. simply by legislation in this country. Instead, these contracts will have to be negotiated and treated individually between the parties concerned, and their transfer will take some time. It is therefore necessary, while these transfers of overseas rights, contracts and such things are taking place, that B.S.A.A. should be kept legally alive, and arrangements will then proceed for B.O.A.C. to take over these essential assets of B.S.A.A.
Clause 1 of the Bill therefore provides for a two-stage merger. The first stage, which is dealt with in subsection (1), is that all B.S.A.A. property in this country and its rights and liabilities will be transferred immediately to B.O.A.C. Under the remaining subsections, B.S.A.A. is empowered to transfer any other property or rights to B.O.A.C., and the latter Corporation is empowered to undertake any liabilities and obligations of B.S.A.A., in both cases without consideration and without payment of Stamp Duty. The second stage is reached when my noble Friend is satisfied that the transfers of overseas rights and liabilities have been effectively carried out, when he may by Statutory Instrument fix an appointed day on which B.S.A.A. shall be dissolved.
Clauses 2 and 3 are required to combine the financial powers and obligations of the two Corporations. They are largely technical, and need not be gone into at this stage, but, in brief, Clause 2 provides for B.O.A.C. to assume the powers of B.S.A.A. under the Civil Aviation Act, 1946, to issue stock and to borrow money, and for B.O.A.C. to take over stock already issued by B.S.A.A. Then, Clause 3 provides that Exchequer Grants made to B.S.A.A. before the passing of the Bill are to be taken into account in calculating any repayments to the Exchequer which B.O.A.C. are required to make under Section 18 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1946.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? Will he say how much of that stock has been taken up by B.S.A.A. to date?

Mr. Lindgren: I could not say offhand, but I will find out before the close of the Debate and let the hon. and gallant Gentleman know the figure before he leaves the House.
So far as Clause 3 is concerned, it is purely a question of repayment of Exchequer grants. If I may emphasise it, this Clause in the Bill simply effects an amalgamation of the two Corporations, their powers and obligations, and imposes no further charge on public funds. Clause 4 permits B.O.A.C. to cover B.S.A.A. activities in their statutory accounts, programmes, estimates and reports so long as B.S.A.A. continues to exist. This Clause is inserted in the interests of and in order to facilitate administrative economy.
I have just had a note passed to me that, in fact, the amount taken up is £3,500,000, but I shall check that figure.
Clause 5 concerns the board of the Corporation. Subsection (1) enables the appointment of a second deputy-chairman to B.O.A.C. without affecting the limitations on the number of members of the board, and subsection (2) deals with a small consequential point. As I informed the House on 15th March, my noble Friend intends that, under the chairmanship of Sir Miles Thomas, as Chairman of B.O.A.C., there shall be two deputy-chairmen, Mr. Whitney Straight, who will be responsible for operations, and Mr. John Booth, at present chairman of B.S.A.A., who will be responsible for the commercial side of B.O.A.C. They will become


equal joint deputy-chairmen, and their executive functions will be in the fields which I mentioned.
Clauses 6 and 7 contain technical provisions consequent on the merger of the two Corporations. Under Clause 6, proceedings or causes of action concerning B.S.A.A. may be continued or enforced by or against B.O.A.C.; and Clause 7 provides that references to B.S.A.A. in legal documents shall, as from the dissolution of that Corporation, be construed as references to B.O.A.C.
I do not want to detain the House at this stage, but I wish to say in conclusion that I have now been associated with civil aviation for nearly three years, a period during which I have seen a steady progress in all branches of the theory and practice of airline operation. Workers and management in the Corporation, from those at the top to those at the bottom, have done a first-class job. They have put their heart and soul into the task of making a success of British air transport. The House may criticise my noble Friend and myself as much as it likes, and can knock us about at much as it likes; we can hear the criticisms, and can answer for ourselves. But I am sure we all agree that we should give credit to the men and women who have been engaged in civil aviation and who have done a first-class job within the Corporations. Workers and managements in the industry itself deserve the credit of this House because what has been done by them is not politics; it is a job of work. Their operations are no different from those of road, rail or sea transport; the fundamental economics of all forms of transport are the same. Looking now at the tasks which have to be undertaken, and in the light of some experience and knowledge of the subject, I can honestly say to the House that the prospects for British civil aviation were never better than they are today. Therefore, I hope the House will give this Bill a Second Reading.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move to leave out "now," and at the end of the Question to add, "this day three months."
Lest any new Member might think that three months argues less opposition than six months, I should like to point out

that it has nothing to do with any prior knowledge of the Government's electoral intentions, but is one of the conventions of the House when moving the rejection of a Bill after Whitsun.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, who moved the Second Reading, said that he has had a lengthy association with civil aviation. I do not think I am betraying any political cause when I say that he has always treated the Opposition with great courtesy and done his best in and outside the House to make our aviation affairs a joint national concern. But just as the Lord President of the Council said when commending the Bill which we are now so ruthlessly amending, so we on this side of the House feel today that what we need is a policy put forward with conviction, courage and system, instead of half-baked plans piloted by nervous and shaking hands. As this Bill may be cited as the Bill of 1949, so we feel that there will be a number of other Airways Corporations' Bills of which this is but the first if the nervous, palsied and shaking hands are left much longer in charge of our aviation affairs.
I can join with the Parliamentary Secretary in paying a tribute to Sir Harold Hartley. He has certainly shown great courtesy and kindness and great technical knowledge throughout the period in which he has been looking after B.O.A.C. and before when he was looking after the previous Corporation. He has enormous gifts which those who knew him in his Oxford days fully appreciate. Indeed, although I hardly expect the hon. Gentleman to make this his argument, Sir Harold Hartley would make an excellent University Member of Parliament. When I say that we praise him for the services he has rendered, I think that is the last thing I can say in support of the arguments advanced by the hon. Gentleman.
We have made it quite plain that the Opposition intend to give a wide measure of freedom to civil aviation, with private transport interests playing a very large part and giving their immense skill and experience in transport to the work of civil aviation in the future. It is perfectly true that we shall always have competition from abroad, but to suggest, as is sometimes done, that one can best meet that competition by having no competition at home surely


means that every single industry in this country engaged in the export trade should pass into monopolistic hands. We are more likely to win the friendly battle with our foreign rivals if, by fierce competition, restrained but definite, in our own field, we have got the best standard bearers for our civil aviation to win the battle with our foreign competitors. We believe that the present arrangement will never work, and, as I said, that this Bill will be followed very shortly by another Airways Corporation Bill which will create the giant monopoly so dear to the Socialist planner. We believe that this will never work because we think it is fundamentally opposed to the true instincts of the British people.
As this is an aviation Debate, perhaps it would not be altogether improper to quote from a letter in "The Times" of a month or two ago from Sir Geoffrey de Havilland, in which he spoke about impersonal organisations, and any who know the working of the great de Havilland Company know that that is a pretty personal organisation. He said that in impersonal organisations the ordinary man—the "plain" man he called him—cannot rise
by his own initiative, talent and honest efforts.
With the immense experience of his very good business behind him, he said that a successful enterprise cannot be built up except
by a slow process of team work"—
and there is team work in B.S.A.A.—
and apprenticeship training, of venture against competition, and with full responsibility for the outcome.
Just as the Government are very ready, and quite properly ready, to pay tribute to the work of the de Havilland Company in the field of civil and military aviation, so, I think, they might ponder on these very significant words.
We very much regret that the first amending Bill to be introduced into this House dealing with the three Corporations should concern itself with the elimination of that Corporation which was born of the enterprise of the shipping interests and then in Coalition days, with the support of many Socialist Ministers, was planned as a fruitful partnership of private shipping interests and the State. It seems to us a tragedy that a combination of this kind, born of such a partnership,

should be the first of the three Corporations to fall under the Government axe.
The hon. Gentleman has added very little to the arguments that have already been given to this House and to another place in commending this proposal. He has told us, in effect, that this move is justified, and indeed is necessary, because in the view of the Government it will lead to more economical and efficient organisation, and because it is forced on them by the shortage of aircraft for B.S.A.A. Those are the only two arguments, and it is mainly to those arguments that I should like now to address my own, dealing first with the argument that by this merger we shall get more economical and efficient organisation.
Our party naturally believes that efficiency is usually best achieved by competition—by restrained competition when dealing with an essential national service, but none the less by competition. So do the Government, because when this Bill was introduced some three years ago that was made perfectly plain. In the first place, harking back for a moment to the Coalition White Paper, to which, as I say, many Socialist Ministers gave their adherence, we stressed the need to have units of aviation so relatively small that there could be individual supervision of all the routes, and we also made it plain that we wanted to avoid a sealed pattern of management and operation so as to encourage, different managements to try out new ideas.
Those views apparently commended themselves to His Majesty's present advisers, for in their own White Paper of December, 1945, Cmd. 6712, they stressed the need for flexibility in management, and referred to the need for
different methods of approach to the technique of airline operation.
It is perfectly true that they do not say "There must be three Corporations," but it is quite obvious that if there are three Corporations and two merge, there is no assurance that the two will not disappear, leaving one, in which case there would be complete elimination of competition altogether. According to the Government's White Paper, what we need are different methods of approach to the technique of airline operation.
Then came the introduction of the Civil Aviation Bill into the House of


Commons, which Measure we are now in effect drastically amending. The Lord President commended that Bill to the House. I do not think his greatest admirers in the Socialist Party would say that it was his best effort at clear thinking, but one of the things which was, at any rate, quite clear was his statement that what we need in civil aviation is
an element of emulation and legitimate competition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1946; Vol. 422, c. 606.]
The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that in the experience of the last three years or so the different Corporations have been—I think I have his words right—tending to create independent approaches. He mentioned things like catering and other services of which we have heard extremely little in the many Debates we have had in the last two years, and it has never at any time been suggested that what was called emulation and legitimate competition when the Lord President commended the Bill to Parliament three years ago has now become individual approaches by the Corporations which are so independent that they are adding unnecessarily to the overheads.
In our view, it would be bad enough if this procedure stopped here, but despite what was said by the Parliamentary Secretary a few moments ago, we certainly have no assurance that that will really happen, and many of us who are not altogether ignorant of the trend of thought in Government circles believe that this Bill is the precursor of another Bill which will eliminate all competition between the Corporations and leave us with only one Corporation. If that is the Government's intention, it would have been more honest to do it now. They have got enough difficulties in doing it by bits and pieces, so that they are reluctant to do it all together. We are entitled to assume that these ideas are, at any rate, in the Government's mind.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) questioned the Parliamentary Secretary some weeks ago, at the time when this merger was first announced, he asked:
Are we then to understand that although it may be possible to reduce the number from three to two, it would not be right to reduce it from three to one?

The Parliamentary Secretary answered:
Not at the present time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March, 1949; Vol. 462, c. 1925.]
He gave no emphatic denial, but today he said, "It is not our intention." A few weeks ago he said that it was not their intention at the present time.

Mr. Lindgren: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not wish to do me an injustice. When words are used in this House they are quoted as a guarantee of some policy. It is obvious, at least as far as I am concerned, that one cannot say what is going to happen in four, five or 10 years' time. All that I was concerned with, in replying to the right hon. Gentleman, were the statements that I was making and the present intentions of the Government. I made it quite clear that, so far as the present intentions are concerned, and so far as we can see, those two Corporations shall be separate because in technique and operation they are quite different.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his answer. He and his colleagues need not disturb themselves as to what will happen in five or 10 years' time. They will not have executive responsibility then. All we are concerned about is what will happen in the period for which they are responsible. In our view, this trend of circumstances is inseparable from the Socialist nationalisation philosophy. Just as when they nationalised the railways they decided it would be more efficient to nationalise road transport, and just as when they nationalised road transport A and B licensees they then threatened the C licensees, so within the Corporations themselves if one Corporation has the misfortune to make a profit, that Corporation is going to be used as a yardstick by which the imperfections of the other Corporations may be shown up. It is no good saying that when a Corporation makes a profit it is conduct prejudicial to good discipline in the Socialist economy, because they know perfectly well that if they do that other people are going to watch and see whether their own failure to deliver the goods may not be shown up in a pretty vivid form.
Incidentally, one of the reasons why this merger is now being commended to the country and to Parliament is that we are told it is to combine the efficiency and safety of B.O.A.C. with the pioneer


spirit of B.S.A.A. But if there had not been these separate Corporations with one able to show the pioneer spirit, then there would be no comparison possible. So the Government are calling in aid to abolish competition the circumstances which enable this comparison to be made. There is no assurance whatever that British European Airways may not go the same way, and that we shall find one giant Corporation running the whole of our monopolistic services.

Mr. Beswick: The hon. Gentleman is talking about the trend of Socialist thought in the country. Has it not occurred to him that the trend has actually been in the contrary direction to that which he indicated? We have regional boards under the National Coal Board, area boards in the gas industry, and in the case of the last Nationalisation Bill, the Iron and Steel Bill, we have left the firms entirely separate.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is largely due to electoral considerations. On the one hand, there is the electorate and on the other hand there is the four-year-old "Let us Face the Future," and the Government are compromising like mad, although not enough, in order to avoid the consequences of their actions.

Mr. Lindgren: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us why even a Conservative Government amalgamated British Airways and Imperial Airways into B.O.A.C.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is true there was an amalgamation and a monopoly, but a monopoly of subsidy and not a monopoly of operation. There was nothing to stop competition. The only thing which they enjoyed and which others could not enjoy was the subsidy. Under those conditions today, I have little doubt that new private enterprise firms would sooner come in. When I see that British European Airways Corporation have no assurance that their independent existence is ended for ever—and I will not develop the significant resignations and retirements in recent months, which did not stop with the departure of Mr. D'Erlanger, but included almost equally important resignations—I am reminded of the remark made to the British South American Airways employees when, about 10 months ago, they first heard rumours of this intention.
B.S.A.A. staff heard last August that this amalgamation was possible. There was, naturally, a great deal of discussion about it. They were very proud of their achievement in being the only Corporation to make a profit during the first year. They were proud of the fact that people seem to like to belong to their Corporation, are happy in it and have a sense of esprit de corps which, at this time in our history, it seems unwise to dissipate. When they heard that B.S.A.A. might be abolished, they were naturally rather anxious about it and a notice was posted on their staff notice boards by the secretary of B.S.A.A. only last August condemning what were called "irresponsible and mischievous rumours" of the merger and assuring the staff that there was no reason whatever that such a thing should ever come about. If assurances are today given to the employees of British European Airways, no doubt they will remember the assurance given to their colleagues in the other Corporation.
If this does, in fact happen and there is only one Corporation left, where shall we be? We shall have no yardstick at all. No doubt we shall have plenty of competitors for the headship of this great new Corporation. It might even be the present chairman of British South American Airways, but it is more likely to be the noble Lord, Lord Douglas, Chairman of British European Airways, whose, public conversion to Socialism is as recent as that of Lord Milverton, but who seems to be ready to continue the rake's progress a little longer, to continue the sinister journey, provided it is conducted by air, at least until the results of the next General Election are known.
Already provision seems to be made in this Bill for just such a circumstance. If we look at Clause 2 (6), we see that power is now taken to give B.O.A.C. the authority to raise money for "the promotion of other undertakings"; and I imagine that "other undertakings" could certainly cover, legally, the activities of B.E.A. Thus, when the hon. Gentleman said that it was not possible to abolish B.E.A. in one fell swoop, no doubt the Government are profiting by their difficulties now in order to make the next operation slightly more expeditious. If it does come about, there will be no yardstick of any kind, no way whatever of judging the efficiency with


which our air services are conducted. At the present moment we are still able to say that the average plane of B.S.A.A. spends one-fifth of its time in the air while the average plane of B.O.A.C. spends one-seventh of its time in the air; that the subsidy per load ton mile in the case of B.O.A.C. is 26 pence per load ton mile and is 10.1 pence in the case of B.S.A.A.; that the capacity ton miles per employee of B.O.A.C. is 3,000 and of B.S.A.A. 9,950; that B.S.A.A., on a mileage only one-fifth of that of B.O.A.C., are managing with one-tenth of the staff. These comparisons are still possible.

Mr. Mikardo: While the hon. Gentleman is on that subject, what about some accident comparisons?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly. I have no wish whatever to get over the difficulties of accidents, and no one could deny the brilliant record of B.O.A.C. in the field of air safety; but the same people authorise aircraft to take the sky, whether they are flown by B.S.A.A. operators or B.O.A.C. operators, and the same tests are applied, and I think it would be extraordinarily ungenerous and quite unfair to condemn a company whose aircraft had been certified as airworthy with a certificate issued by the same people as those who certified the aircraft of B.O.A.C.

Mr. Mikardo: I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows very well that accidents do not depend only on the airworthiness of aircraft but on a lot of other factors as well, and that, whilst keeping within the definition of requirements, it is still possible to skimp requirements a little in these other factors; and is that not precisely what happened in B.S.A.A.?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: From this side of the House we have always pressed for the fullest publicity in all inquiries and we have no wish that anything should be done secretly or without the public knowing. No one ever suggested that an essential element in safety had been disregarded. Indeed, while it is perfectly true that B.S.A.A. planes have been continuously in the air for a greater proportion of time than others, the pilots themselves have made it quite plain that, though worked hard, they are not overworked and there is no point in which the human element, because of the

Corporation's orders, could have explained any of the troubles or difficulties.

Mr. Beswick: Will the hon. Gentleman inquire from his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) about the occasion of which his hon. and gallant Friend told us in this House when Tudors landed in Bermuda short of the safety margin of fuel?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and then, no doubt, the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) will have an opportunity to ask him about that. I was anxious to show that we should have no further standard of comparison between the various Atlantic operations, the South Atlantic and North Atlantic operations, and if, as we think is likely to happen, the third Corporation also disappears, we shall have no yardstick of any kind at all.
Speaking about staff, as I did a moment ago, leads me to the question of what the staff think about this move. I must be careful not to get out of Order, for, at a time when we are having a great deal of difficulty with the nationalised railways, I am sure the Government will agree that what the operators of nationalised undertakings think about the Government are not always things that the Government ought to do. But I think we are entitled to say, in regard to the aircraft industry, that the claims made by His Majesty's Government are quite untenable.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the Amalgamated Engineering Association. He said it was very kind to talk of it as a union; he even called it a "goose club." This is a most curious way to get people to unite behind the service of the Corporation, when we remember that the overwhelming proportion of the people working for B.S.A.A. belong to the A.E.A. At the present moment some 60 per cent. of the workers claim to be members of the Amalgamated Engineering Association. I am not so learned in trade union organisation as the Parliamentary Secretary; I know a little bit more about friendly societies than he does, but not so much about trade union organisation. Nevertheless, I am prepared to agree that if a union can claim successfully to have 60 per cent. of the


workers in some industry as members, the fact that it is called a goose club by the Parliamentary Secretary does not alter its claim to speak for the people it represents.
Quite apart from this, the British Airline Pilots' Association have emphatically repudiated these arrangements, and very many pilots in B.S.A.A. belong to that association. The Association of Clerical Supervisory Staffs say they were never even approached. These appear to be pretty significant differences with the statement made by the hon. Gentleman.
I gather that the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) is going to answer this, or try to answer it, when the time comes, but I should like to suggest here that the fact that a union may not be affiliated to the T.U.C. is no reason why those who belong to it should not be entitled to be heard. It would be a pretty poor way, I think, in which to prevent the coming of a totalitarian state in England, which no doubt the hon. Member for Reading also wants to avoid, to deny the right of representation to a union which does not want to be specifically bound to any one party.

Mr. Beswick: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me the occasion when the British Airline Pilots' Association repudiated the arrangements?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I certainly understood that from their spokesmen and I can only go by that, that it is so. If the hon. Member has another view, however, he can say so when the time comes.

Mr. Lindgren: Their spokesmen upon this were the general secretary and president. What the hon. Gentleman said is not true; they are in favour of this move.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman must bring that fact forward so that the unions can argue it out among themselves. With the president of the N.U.R. and the other bigger unions to consider, that will provide, I imagine, pretty vivid headlines. All I am concerned with is that representative members of these unions assure me that it is so, and in regard to the A.E.A. it is certainly a fact that this union, comprising the majority of the workers, is wholly opposed to this amalgamation.
The word "redundant" is now rearing its head in B.S.A.A. affairs. My purpose in referring to the staff side was to hope that the Government—as they will naturally if they are prepared to carry out their intention—will be particularly careful to see that members of the smaller Corporation, to whichever union they belong, are not prejudiced. If this merger is carried out they will no longer have what the Lord President, who is now going out, reassured them of some years ago—alternative sources of employment. The Government ought to be particularly anxious and careful to see that their interests are safeguarded, for the word "redundant" never occurred in B.S.A.A. history until the question arose of the amalgamation with B.O.A.C. Let me add also that, though it is rumoured that the central headquarters staff of B.S.A.A. has increased enormously during the last year or so, there is very little, if any, effect on the engineering or air crew side which can be proved. The Minister said a short time ago—I think I am right in quoting him—that, in fact, they were if anything understaffed.
The second reason advanced by the Government for this proposal is the shortage of aircraft, and particularly the difficulties in which the grounding of the Tudor has placed B.S.A.A. Before the withdrawal of the Tudor they had 10 Tudors, I think, and 11 Yorks. I think those figures are correct. Of course, they were hoping for more Tudors. The hon. Gentleman did not really do very much to give the impression, which is the true impression, that in the field of aircraft construction we are now coming into our great period. I think we ought to remember when considering the difficulties with which B.S.A.A. are now confronted—and we need to let the world know—how their aircraft construction really stands. In the first Debate to take place in this House since the Hawker aircraft beat the London-to-Paris record and the London-to-Karachi record some reference should be made from both sides of the House to this fact, and to some of the types of planes now coming along which enable us, so far as construction is concerned, to have no fear of the future.
The S.R. 48, the Princess Flying-boat, the Bristol Constellation replacement, the Hermes, the Apollo, the Ambassador, the Viscount, the Brabazon I, and the


de Havilland new Venture are giving us a technical lead, and it is the misfortune of B.S.A.A. that their particular troubles have come at this moment. What they want above everything else are planes to enable them to restore the highly profitable East to West route to the South American seas via Lisbon and Bermuda and Central America.
I am a little uncertain—it is rather difficult to follow—exactly what is to happen in that field. I gather from the Parliamentary Secretary that the route to the Caribbean and Central America will go, as now, via Newfoundland and America. It seems a little difficult to advertise a holiday in the Caribbean by way of Iceland. But then he followed it up by saying it was proposed to restore the Lisbon, Buenos Aires, San Diego route. If I am right in thinking this we, of course, are delighted, and we shall wish every success to the British pilots, under whichever name they may fly, who will be opening up that route again. At the same time, I suppose we are right in assuming that the Hermes aircraft will be based on Jamaica or Nassau for the South American west coast routes. That was the impression we got. Perhaps we were wrong. Perhaps, whoever is to reply to the Debate will clear that matter up.
On the general principle of the shortage of aircraft we still do not see why B.S.A.A. should not, with all the advantages of its own loyal associations and aircrews, retain aircraft or should not have been leased or sold aircraft to carry out these routes. If it is a fact that six Constellations and ten Stratocruisers can now carry on both the B.S.A.A. and B.O.A.C. North Atlantic services, we are entitled to ask whether B.O.A.C. orders were not excessive—if they can now do both. Or was this amalgamation decision taken long before anybody was told about it?

Mr. Lindgren: This is the most vital factor in the whole thing. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House exactly what aircraft within the next three years should have been procured by B.S.A.A. to operate?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Of course, I cannot do that. I wish I could.

Mr. Lindgren: The hon. Gentleman apparently can.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: How can one answer a question like that specifically? If I said a certain type of aircraft would be available next year and it were not, what would be the good? Only the Government can do that, or say what is required. Only the Government have all the information at their disposal. However, we are entitled to say that if B.O.A.C. without further orders can carry out the services of two Corporations, then when they first asked for these aircraft for one Corporation they were asking too much. If there is an answer we shall be very glad to hear it.

Mr. Lindgren: Mr. Lindgren rose——

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I really ought to get on. I do not want to be the least rude when the hon. Gentleman gave way, but I myself have already given way what must be a record number of times.
The last of the aircraft is the flying boat. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) who has taken a deep personal interest in the flying boat and has most consistently looked after the interests of the company, Saunders-Roe, and the interests of his own constituency and those of the people in British aviation, will ask more detailed questions about that. However, I cannot forget the attitude that B.O.A.C. have always taken up in regard to the flying boat. We welcomed the recent statement of Sir Harold Hartley and Sir Miles Thomas. Those of us who are his friends are particularly glad that the judgment of Air-Commodore Brackley—whose leadership of B.S.A.A. was, in the short period he lived, of such high quality—looks like being vindicated.
We were very glad indeed over the success of the Solent flying boats, and the approval of passengers is coming from many countries of the world. We realise that the Princess Flying Boat, with its longer range, will need fewer bases, and that, no doubt, will cut down the capital costs of constructing those bases. But we cannot forget that B.O.A.C. in October, 1947, refused the flying boats that had been ordered, which were then immediately welcomed by Air Vice-Marshal Bennett, whose decision on behalf of B.S.A.A. was confirmed in January last year. We hope that this order is safe, and that an Empire like ours, united by the sea, will use the sea


in its own air communications. I should like also at the same time to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will give some indication of what it is intended to do about the order for the six Comets to fly for B.S.A.A. and to be delivered in 1952 to 1953, and whether the new merger proposes to honour that order.
In conclusion, I would remind the House that I started by saying that it is our intention to break up this rigid system of monopoly. We are bound to judge the Government's actions by whether or not they make it more difficult for us to carry out intentions or not. Undoubtedly, this action of the Government removes means to compare achievement, and it increases monopoly, but as the Government's sands are running out so rapidly, its practical effect may be very small. None the less, we cannot share responsibility for it, so we have decided to vote against this Bill.

4.58 p.m.

Air-Commodore Harvey: I beg to second the Amendment.
When the Parliamentary Secretary made his announcement in this House regarding the merger some two or three months ago I said that I did not disagree with that statement. However, on reflection, and after going into the matter further, and after long consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the merger is not a good thing at the present time. That is my opinion. What the future will hold I do not know at the moment, but I do not think this proposal of the Government is right. The Parliamentary Secretary spoke, I thought, in a very generous vein about aviation, and I certainly intend to respect the line he took there. I disagree with him there on one point. He said that party politics should not enter into this subject. In past Debates we have tried to do what we could to put forward ideas likely to improve the working of the Corporations.
Of course, we on this side of the House firmly believe that the industry will not operate successfully while it is nationalised. That, of course, is politics, and I do disagree with the hon. Gentleman in that respect. It has been proved in other countries, and it is being proved in this country at the present time. We are told that the managements of the

three Corporations want this merger. I can well believe they do; it may be convenient for many reasons. When things are not going well, when large deficiencies are being shown on the balance sheets, it is not a bad thing to have a reshuffle, and to start again next year, after three years' working. That is sometimes done in ordinary commerce, and I have no doubt that the Corporations may have something like that at the back of their minds.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the many advantages of the merger. He did not give us one disadvantage, although I am quite sure that he, who always tries to put forward the facts as he sees them, must know that there are disadvantages, however many advantages there may be in this proposed merger. One, of course, concerns the staff of B.S.A.A., both the aircrews and the ground engineers. It is well known that they very much resent this amalgamation. That is a disadvantage, to start with. B.S.A.A. started their operations some few years ago with almost every disadvantage that a new airline could possibly have, except that they had some good men on the management side. They had the disadvantage of taking on as aircrew men who had brilliant war records but with little experience of flying civil aircraft commercially. Those men have stepped into the job and proved themselves to be up to the mark, if I may say so, in every respect over what is generally known to be the most difficult route of all.
I was surprised, on looking back and reading the Government White Paper, Command Paper 6712. In spite of what the Lord President said in May, 1946, it was very specific in its wording. How are we to know when we shall get another Bill? I could have thought of several Bills to improve the Civil Aviation Act in preference to this one. In addition to that, we have had three Ministers of Civil Aviation, all with different views: Lord Winster, Lord Nathan, and now Lord Pakenham. That is quite a fair number in just over two years of operating a nationalised industry. The Parliamentary Secretary referred with some emphasis to the fact that he had already served for three years. Well, that is a record for his Department. Some of those Ministers interfered with this industry. Of course, the Minister has


the power to do so, but there was interference particularly by Lord Nathan; and his very unhappy quarrel with Air Vice-Marshal Bennett did nothing to help B.S.A.A.
Hon. Members opposite have referred to the accident record of B.S.A.A. In the past I myself have asked Questions in the House and raised the matter in Debate; I am not anxious to cover up anything that has happened in the past concerning any aircraft operating company. It must, however, be recalled that B.S.A.A. have operated the most difficult route of all, and with very indifferent equipment. That must be borne in mind. Although the aircraft were inspected and passed by the Air Registration Board, their equipment was not suitable for the route—a point which I think was agreed by everybody—although it was the best that could be found at the time.
Furthermore, they operated from indifferent airfields, particularly on the West Coast of Africa. Also, there was a lack of radar equipment. Is it surprising that there should have been accidents? I certainly questioned the Parliamentary Secretary about the endurance and range of the Tudor, but I was assured by the chairman of the Corporation that there were adequate safety margins of operation. However, we do not want to go too far into what happened with the Tudor.
Let me now say a little about the loss of aircraft. I was surprised the other day that after the unfortunate accident of the K.L.M. Constellation aircraft there was one announcement about the loss of this large four-engine airliner, and that was all that was said. When there is an accident in British civil aviation it is headlined for weeks. I am told that the Lockheed Corporation, who manufacture the Constellation, have lost about 12 Constellations in accidents which have never been fully explained, one or two in the same area in which the Tudors were lost. Why is it that this country always gets the bad end of the stick in connection with accidents? I believe that this is the answer. K.L.M., within an hour or two of the recent accident, came out with an announcement that there was a bomb in the baggage compartment—[Laughter.] I agree it is a fantastic statement; if they knew there

was a bomb there, presumably the aircraft would not have taken off. But that has never been denied, and it has been accepted by the public—the gullible public as far as aviation is concerned. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to press upon the Corporations to make a quick announcement when these unfortunate accidents occur in British civil aviation. I do not advocate following the example we had the other day, but I do ask that it should be got over quickly to the public.
I assert that the employees of B.S.A.A. do not want this merger. I thought the Parliamentary Secretary was a little unkind in his remarks to the Aeronautical Engineers Association. He may not agree with that particular association because they are not affiliated to the T.U.C. Nevertheless, I am told that a year ago about 91 per cent. of the staff belonged to that association. I do not know how many belong to it at the moment, but I have no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary could find that out. I should have thought that economies could have been effected in these Corporations without necessarily having the merger of the two we are considering today.
B.S.A.A. have a very fine record in efficiency when compared with the other Corporations, but they have had a succession of troubles from the beginning. First there was Air Vice-Marshal Bennett. I do not agree with his politics, but I have the greatest respect for him as an aviator. I think that he wanted a chairman who could keep a firm hold on him, who could keep him on the straight and narrow path, as it were. If that had been done, he was a man who could never have been replaced in this nationalised industry: he was brilliant, and I am sorry that he should have had this quarrel with Lord Nathan and gone out. He had great courage and tenacity; with the Tudor on the airlift he has achieved a very great performance in operating his aircraft, and has flown a large number of hours. Then followed the loss of Air-Commodore Brackley. That was a very sad loss, and I sometimes wonder whether, had he lived, this Bill would be before Parliament. I somehow doubt it.
I consider that B.S.A.A. cannot be blamed for what took place over the Tudor. It was not B.S.A.A. who asked for all the modifications to be made to that aircraft; B.O.A.C. asked for most


of them. B.S.A.A. had to operate those aircraft; they took them because they could get no other aircraft. Nevertheless, on the airlift B.S.A.A., as well as Air Vice-Marshal Bennett, operated Tudors and put up a very fine record. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo), who is always getting at the charter companies for making enormous profits, I would point out that B.S.A.A. receive exactly the some rates for their Tudors on the airlift. I do not know whether he resents the Corporation being paid for doing exactly the same job that the charter companies are doing. He did refer to that some weeks ago, I thought rather unfairly.

Mr. Mikardo: It is quite untrue to say that I resent anybody being paid for the job done. The only comment I made on the occasion to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers was that the statements made paying tribute to the charter companies made it sound as though they had done all the work for nothing, and I thought that misapprehension ought to be corrected.

Air-Commodore Harvey: The charter companies have done exactly the same as the Corporation on the airlift, and I objected to the way the hon. Gentleman put it over at the time. I do not want to labour the point. I know he resents that the charter companies should even be making a living out of it.
The South Atlantic route, as was said at Question time today, offers great possibilities as a dollar earner, and I hope something will be done to speed up an arrangement whereby that route will be covered by modern aircraft. The Parliamentary Secretary said there was no economic aircraft with which to cover the route today, but if the "Tudor" was thought to be economic would not the "Constellation" be even more economical for that route? I should have thought it would have been a good thing to have put some "Constellations "on that route several months ago, and to have allocated two or three of them to B.S.A.A. to operate, instead of "Tudors."
We now come to the question of whether B.O.A.C. will have a division in the South Atlantic. My information is that the present "Constellations" operated by B.O.A.C. to Australia are operated by the Atlantic division of that

Corporation. If that is so, what hope is there of maintaining a separate division for the South Atlantic? That is what disturbs me.

Mr. Lindgren: There are 11 aircraft altogether, six operating on the North Atlantic route and five purchased from Aer Lingus for general working with our good friends from Australia. Surely the correct thing to do, when there are 11 aircraft of similar type, is to maintain them at the same base. These aircraft are being maintained at Filton. All that the Western division does for the Eastern division is to maintain and crew aircraft, and hand them over for operating.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Provided that applies only to maintenance I withdraw what I have said, but I was told that it actually meant more than just maintenance of aircraft operating the route. I think it is a disaster that the B.S.A.A. team should be broken up, as undoubtedly it will be. Aircrews are going on to conversion forces in September. Nothing at all has been said about the ground engineers, the maintenance staff, and I should like to have an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that there will be no redundancy among these men. There is very little fat on B.S.A.A. today; the Corporation has been run in a very economical way, in so far as staff are concerned. It is feared that the men to be merged into the larger Corporation will find themselves out of work, and if the Parliamentary Secretary can make an announcement which will satisfy these men it will give great relief.
A year ago B.S.A.A., who were expanding at that time, had a staff in London of about 170. Today, it is approaching 400 to 500. Is this to continue? With the country in an economic crisis such as we are faced with now, we cannot afford to have Corporations run in the way in which they are being run. We are told that economies have taken place, and are taking place, which I do not doubt, but there are many men in these Corporations who could well be dispensed with and I hope the Minister will impress on the managements of the Corporations, when the Bill becomes law, as it undoubtedly will, the need to bring about real and effective economies. If they do not, then the savings and economies which are expected will not be effected.
I should like to refer briefly to the "Princess" S.R.45 flying boat. Having talked to engineers of Messrs. Saunders Roe, I believe that the British aircraft industry has something really good in this aircraft, something which, so far as we know, the Americans have not got. It is promising well, and I believe that when it comes into operation it may attract a tremendous amount of traffic. I would like to feel that the Government intend to place an order for an additional four flying boats—if I may put that point especially to the Minister of Supply, who is having a doze at the moment. I am sorry to disturb his rest, but I must tell him that Messrs. Saunders Roe would be much happier if he could say that another four flying boats had been ordered. I hope some decision will be taken in the near future on this matter.
B.S.A.A. have always been flying-boat minded. It was thought that B.O.A.C. were not, but my information is that they are becoming more flying-boat minded now, and I hope that Sir Miles Thomas, whom I wish well in his new post as chairman, and Mr. Whitney Straight, on the operational side, will see that those under them learn something about the advantages of flying boats, and that this great venture gets a real chance in operation. I was told that flying-boat berth No. 50 at Southampton was equivalent in cost to 200 yards of the runway at Filton. That is a problem. I am pointing out the merits of the flying boat because B.S.A.A. were most keen on making a success of that side of their flying operations.
We were told by the Government that there was an estimated loss for 1949–50 of £5½ million between the Corporations. I should like to know how that will be split up under the new arrangement? I believe that B.O.A.C. have acted prematurely in this matter of merging with B.S.A.A. I do not want to bring in personalities, but I believe that some of the more senior staff of B.S.A.A. have already moved their offices into B.O.A.C. premises. I do not believe that Parliament enacts laws to see them flouted by nationalised industries or anyone else, and it would have been far better if these people had heard or read what was being said today before acting like a rubber stamp. It is a slur on Parliament that such action should have already taken place.
As I say, engineers are against this merger and so are aircrews. I should like to know who is for it other than the managements? It seems that the Government are for it because it may be convenient when further losses are incurred. They eventually want one Corporation; I believe they want to get the whole thing under one administration, so that they can do what they like with aviation. In the meantime, I wish the operating side of the industry well. It has a great chance, though there are tremendous difficulties ahead. We can ill afford extravagance and wrong decisions. If it is necessary now to have one Corporation to cover the North and South Atlantic routes, it was necessary a few years ago. Things have not changed to that extent. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us an answer to the points which have been put to him today.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. Beswick: We have heard a most reasonable speech from the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) with some most interesting details. I do not propose to follow him in the detailed points he made except in two respects: I must say I think he found original ground for criticising the Government when he said that they did not account for the loss of our aircraft by claiming that bombs had gone off in the plane. I do not know who the hon. and gallant Gentleman expected to deny that unlikely K.L.M. story, unless it was the man who was supposed to have put the bomb in the aircraft. I was also surprised by his statement that on that side of the House they did not think nationalised airline Corporations could pay. If that is the case I am surprised that they set up B.O.A.C. in the first place.
Of the hon. and gallant Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) I would say this. I do not know whether he was in this House until 6 o'clock this morning with the rest of us, but if he was, I must certainly congratulate him on the energy and enthusiasm he conserved for moving this Amendment. I particularly admired his energy, because I really cannot believe that he agreed with the main point of his argument. The main point of his argument was that here was this Labour Government breaking up the competition which had existed between


the three airline Corporations. But when the Civil Aviation Bill, 1946, was before the House, the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford said that the Socialist Government's proposals set up
a monopoly of three Corporations which had no shadow of independence whatever. I hope shortly to show that they are but three branches of a Government concern with their separate boards pure eyewash."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1946; Vol. 422, c. 620.]

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Since the hon. Member has quoted me, may I point out that that is exactly what is appearing to be the case, and that this Bill is giving legislative expression to the doubts I expressed at that time?

Mr. Beswick: What the hon. Member actually said was that the existing state of affairs gave us no competition whatsoever. He said that the three separate boards were "pure eyewash." If it be the fact that the three separate boards are "pure eyewash," I fail to see why he comes along after an all-night sitting and with such energy opposes this Bill. I think that his energy was rather misplaced.
Having said that, I am bound also to say that I was sorry this merger was deemed to be necessary. I was sorry because the reasons given by the Lord President of the Council, and reiterated by the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon, about the necessity for these three Corporations in the first place still hold good in my judgment, despite what the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford said in the Debate in May, 1946. I am not satisfied that in the comparatively short experience we have had since the war, any one of the three Corporations has developed either the perfect administrative technique or has thrown up, as we hoped that in time it would, the airline executives to whom we can safely consider handing over a larger sphere of organisation. I believe that in recent months all the Corporations, including B.O.A.C., have made very strenuous efforts to evolve the administrative efficiency which we demanded. But it still seems to me that B.O.A.C. have many problems to settle themselves without having to take on the additional responsibility of the South American routes.
But if the Parliamentary Secretary comes down to the House and says that the two Corporations, the National Joint

Council of the Industry, and the Minister's advisers all declare it is impossible, with the aircraft available, to operate the routes which were formerly operated by B.S.A.A., and B.O.A.C., then I must admit that they are in a better position to examine the details of the situation and that I have to accept their decision.
I will make only one point about this question of the agreement of the employees. I feel there is some ground for criticism of the management in so far as they have not put over to the employees of B.S.A.A. all that is involved. It was quite clear even from one or two of the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield about what he thought the set-up along the routes would be, and from the question put by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Ward) that there is considerable misunderstanding as to what exactly the plans of the new Corporation are. In that respect, at any rate, the two Corporations, B.S.A.A. and B.O.A.C., especially the former, have failed in their responsibility to explain to the employees exactly what is the situation.
What seems so important now, if we accept this merger, is the kind of administrative organisation which is to follow on. Perhaps I may be allowed to indicate the kind of pattern some of us on this side put forward for the air transport industry three or four years ago, and then see how far this new Corporation can fit into the pattern we envisaged. Firstly, we asked for one air transport authority to centralise policy making. We also asked that underneath that policy-making authority there should be a number of separate executive organisations responsible for appropriate geographical areas. We never accepted the fact that the three Corporations set up under the 1946 Act were the ideal divisions of responsibility.
It seemed quite clear that B.S.A.A. was too small. The shape of that particular organisation was laid down by the private enterprise companies who were responsible for the original plan, and had it not been for that I am certain that we should have had a different shape in the first place. Similarly, I think it can be argued, and was argued very successfully, that B.O.A.C. were taking over too big an area of responsibility; we might then have had two separate


divisions underneath the air transport authority. Thirdly, we envisaged that these separate Corporations—I must emphasise the fact that there is often a good deal of confusion in these terms used, because the type of Corporation to which I am referring might well be what is described in other occasions as a "division"—would develop certain functions in common. For example, there were clearly advantages to be gained from centralising servicing and maintenance.
It may well be that the new structure envisaged in the present Bill may fit into the pattern which some of us put forward two or three years ago. In that case, I would put forward one or two points which will have to be watched. The first is that if this new and enlarged Corporation is to be responsible for policy, then that responsibility must be clearly laid down. The relationship to the Ministry must be much more sharply defined. We must clearly say that either the Ministry or the Corporation is responsible so that we know exactly where we stand. At the present time no one is quite sure who is to be blamed or who is to be praised for a decision; in fact, no one knows who is making the decision. I admit that there was a necessity when the present Minister took over for a good deal of active participation in the airline Corporations, if for no other reason than that they were being paid considerable sums of public money. If it is said that these subsidies will continue to be necessary, and if the Minister is, as a permanent role, to take active and almost day-to-day interest in the administration of the Corporations, then I feel that this new Corporation might very well be reduced in size, eliminating the part-time people, and so become, in other words, an executive body under the policy-making Ministry.
Let me say at once that this is only one alternative, and that it is not the alternative I personally should like to see. I should like to see this new Corporation becoming the policy-making body and gradually the Ministry of Civil Aviation would become redundant. When we decide which of these two alternatives, either the Ministry or the Corporation, is to make policy, then in my judgment we should retain under this policy-making body some divisional

pattern, and one of the divisions should be the South American Division, I am still certain that we have got to have these separate organisations, in which different types of people can work, carry out their ideas, approach different problems in their own way, develop their own team spirit, and work out new techniques. In this way we will have something to compare.
I hope it is possible to do something of that kind even if certain functions such as maintenance are shared in common, so that each division can maintain a personality and a technique of its own. I hope that in the accounts that are presented it will be possible to judge between one division and another to see which is doing well, and what people are doing well. I would hope that those accounts would be available, not simply to the Board of the Corporation or even to the Members of this House but to the public generally.
May I make just one or two further points, and here I agree with something which was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey). I am still certain that the industry must get out of what was described in this House as the "cocktail-party habit." There is still far too great a display of needless ostentation in this industry. Recently I had the opportunity of seeing something of the United States airlines, and one of the interesting developments there is the new sky-coach. In so far as the American domestic airlines are doing better, much is due to those new austerity services. They have cut out many of the frills, and are now carrying twice the number of passengers at pretty well half the price. As the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield said, in many spheres of our activities, even including our social services, we have got to adopt a policy of austerity, and I feel that the directors and management of these airline Corporations ought to cut out some of the luxury especially in administration. Incidentally, what I have said in relation to the airline Corporations might very well be applied, and even more so, to the aircraft-manufacturing industry.
Finally, I make two last points. I hope the endeavour of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford to stir up an element of uncertainty with regard to the future of


B.E.A. will not succeed. What we require now in this industry is time to settle down and finish with the uncertainty and instability which different changes have inevitably brought about. Lastly, I hope we have seen the end of that period which necessitated bringing in men from outside and putting them at the top of these different Corporations. I hope that as we come within this more settled period, we shall see young people from within the services rising to the top. I trust they will be given full responsibility to develop their professional craft. If that can be done and the other points I have put forward are observed, I am quite certain that the progress which has been made in this industry in recent months can be accelerated, to the benefit of the taxpayers and of this House, and to the great satisfaction of the men and women who work in it.

5.35 p.m.

Sir Peter Macdonald: As one Member of this House who has always looked upon British civil aviation as one part of the transportation problem, and has always advocated the setting up of a Ministry of Transportation, I support the argument of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) when he stresses that that course should be adopted eventually and the present Ministry of Civil Aviation should become redundant. That I hope will be the course of events in the not-far-distant future. In saying that, I am sorry that this Bill sees the passing of one of the three branches of civil aviation which was more likely to assist the coming of the Ministry of Transportation, because when the original set-up of the civil aviation organisation after the war was reached, this idea was very much in our minds. Behind it was the hope of combining road, rail, sea and air transport.
Mr. Booth, who is now the deputy-chairman of the British Overseas Corporation, was brought in, and through his activity and enterprise he got this Corporation, B.S.A.A., going. Then the Socialist Government came into power and threw over Lord Swinton's policy. Nevertheless, Mr. Booth and Air Vice-Marshal Bennett showed tremendous enterprise and displayed great skill in overcoming tremendous difficulties in the way of operational aircraft and so forth, and they got this Corporation organised. I regret

very much to see the passing of this Corporation for this reason, and because so many people in it were brought up under private enterprise.
They have shown themselves capable of effectively running not only shipping companies but this Corporation, which was able to show a paper profit during the time they have been in control, although it might be said that it was a very flimsy profit and based on some miscalculations. If one went into the figures too closely and found out what was paid for the hire and purchase of aircraft compared with other Corporations, it would reduce the margin of profit to very small limits if, indeed, one existed at all. That is by the way. The fact remains that the three Corporations are being reduced to two, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) was anxious to know whether this was the prelude to two being reduced to one, which is exercising the minds of many people in this House.
The last time civil aviation was discussed in this House, I strongly criticised the expenditure of the Corporations. I pointed out that B.O.A.C. was greatly over-staffed and there were far too many bodies in connection with the Ministry of Civil Aviation, which was also greatly over-staffed, and that they were only an embarrassment to the Corporations, who were trying to get on with their operational job. I was a member of a Select Committee, which inquired into civil aviation. It was in operation only for a short time. We could not get the true facts at the time, and another inquiry has taken place since then.
We have got enough facts to prove to us that there is gross overlapping, and that there is tremendous room for reduction in expenditure. That is why, when I spoke on this matter on the last occasion, I recommended that that course should be taken. It was not obvious with the British South American Corporation, because they approached their job as a business man would do, and built from the bottom upwards. They built as they went on. On the other hand, B.O.A.C. and British European Airways took on an enormous staff and went in for expansion, but they had to contract almost immediately, with the result that 5,000 people were thrown out of employment


and very great hardship and bitterness were caused in the minds of people who had been given to understand when they came out of the Forces that they would have steady employment for the rest of their lives.
The result of the Bill will probably be more redundancies and more people thrown out of jobs. If that is necessary for efficiency and economy, by all means let it be done, but do not let it all fall on the staff of British South American Airways. They are afraid, as they are being swallowed up by an organisation 20 times their size, of being the people who are to be thrown out of work and made to bear the burden. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can give an assurance to these people, who have built up British South American Airways with an esprit de corps that does not exist to anything like the same extent in the other Corporations. They are small in number, comparatively, and they have been led by men with tremendous enthusiasm who have had vast problems facing them all the time. They have all been very keen on the operational side.
Apart from that, I would like to know what the future operations of the organisation will be, particularly in regard to aircraft. We were told by the Minister that the chief reason for the amalgamation was connected with problems of aircraft, but no mention was made by the Minister of the new types of aircraft that are coming on. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford referred to certain types of machines and other references were made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey). I went down with various Members of the House to see a job of aircraft production being done, and all the party expressed their very sincere desire to see the job gone on with, because we had in the S.R.45 something which no other country in the world had in the way of aircraft.
When the announcement was made about the amalgamation of these two Corporations, fears were expressed about the future. The aeroplane firms could not help remembering an order which was issued for a fixed number of aircraft. Progress was being made in the production of the machines when suddenly, out of the blue, the producers were told that

the order was to be cancelled. The reason was that the B.O.A.C. found that they could not continue to operate seaplanes on the Atlantic routes. The order was to be dropped altogether. The firms were very upset about this matter, naturally. Air Vice-Marshal Bennett went down to look at the machines and said that they were exactly what he wanted. He persuaded the Ministry of Supply to order them. It is natural that the firms concerned should want to get an assurance from the Minister that the aeroplanes which have been ordered will be proceeded with.
In another place the Minister of Civil Aviation made a statement that seven aircraft were being ordered. I understand the policy now is that three of that seven are to be gone on with and that the other four will be held in abeyance. A certain amount of work has already been started on the four, on the assurance which was given that it was a firm order. Losses may be incurred, and many men are going to lose their jobs, because certain sections of the firm's factory will have no work until the remainder of the order is confirmed. That is a very serious thing at the present time for Cowes, which is in my constituency. Three firms are concerned there, and one of them has practically finished with the order now. They have laid off many of their men, some of whom are the most highly skilled craftsmen in the world. They have their homes in Cowes and it would be most unfortunate if they were lost to us. They have a record which is second to none in the country. They are being thrown out of their jobs because of a delay in the order for the aircraft. I would like an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that the order for the three machines will be continued and that the order for the other four will be confirmed at the earliest possible moment. I do not want the impression to go out that the firms in question are up against the B.O.A.C., with which they always had the happiest relationships. They recognise that the B.O.A.C. has far more experience with British flying boats than has British South American Airways.

Mr. Lindgren: What is all the crying about, then?

Sir P. Macdonald: I am not crying at all. It is said that there is a possibility,


as it occurred before, of B.O.A.C. deciding to cancel the orders for the flying boats.

Mr. Lindgren: I deprecate the statements which are being made. All the time there is the inference that some evil spirit in B.O.A.C. which will "dish" flying boats. B.O.A.C. are the only operators who have ever operated flying boats. As for talking about B.S.A.A. being the flying-boat champions, they have never seen one.

Sir P. Macdonald: I believe that some people in B.O.A.C. have a prejudice against flying boats. We know it from past experience. I believe it is largely due to a misconception. They have the idea that ground operations in connection with flying boats are far more costly than with land planes. That is not necessarily so. We certainly do not have to spend millions of pounds on new runways in order to launch the flying boats because it is hoped to launch them in Southampton Water without any assistance at all. The prejudices are not created by B.O.A.C or B.S.A.A., but someone has computed costs of servicing facilities for flying boats which costs are considered quite fantastic by the people who know flying boats, and who maintain that very expensive installations are unnecessary for the operation of the modern flying boat.
It is hoped that before any very expensive installations for these flying boats are begun by the Government the benefit will be obtained of experience in their operation by people who understand flying boats. The figures already prepared have been got out by people of the Ministry of Civil Aviation who probably do not know the first thing about flying boat operations. There is this feeling in the minds of the people who are responsible for this enterprise that there is a danger of the same thing occurring again, and I hope that the Minister will give the assurance for which we have asked and take steps to see that the order is completed and that work can proceed on the other four aircraft.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) adopted a more consistent line in his arguments than did his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd). I would point out,

however, that B.S.A.A. only succeeded in making a profit in its first year of operations. Another hon. Member also suggested that B.S.A.A. has continued to make profits, but for the clarity of the record it should be pointed out that last year the Corporation made a net loss of £421,000 and had to fall back on an Exchequer grant of £260,000. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight will admit that if B.S.A.A. continued to operate on their previous basis, in view of the most unfortunate loss of their aircraft, substantial losses would be suffered by them, and in view of the way it is now being compelled to operate, clearly very substantial losses are being incurred.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford was not consistent for the reasons which my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) gave. I do not believe that the hon. Member convinced the House by his interruption of my hon. Friend. When the Opposition opposed the 1946 Bill, they did so mainly on the ground that it prevented free competition, and they argued very vigorously that the three Corporations which were being set up did not permit competition. It was possible so to argue. I remind the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford that he said:
To talk as if these three corporations, geographically limited to separate parts of the world, can provide competition to each other is surely a ludicrous assumption."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1946; Vol. 422, c. 618.]
Nothing could be more definite than that. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) during the Third Reading said this, which is stronger. He argued that far from setting up three independent Corporations, the Bill set up three Corporations which were tied hand and foot, and placed sole responsibility on the Minister. If hon. Gentlemen opposite are now to argue that what they call "this drastic amendment of the Act" will lead to a restriction of competition, they must in all honesty admit that their arguments in 1946 were wrong, and they are not willing to do that. Has the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford failed to appreciate the advance in thought in civil aviation since the time of the Swinton proposals, and does he still believe that it is possible to return to free competition in civil aviation? Surely he will admit that the history of civil aviation, not only in this country but in many other countries, shows that any attempt at a


marriage of free competition and private enterprise with public regulation and public money has failed and has had to be dissolved.

Air-Commodore Harvey: No.

Mr. Davies: It has happened in this country, and no argument has been advanced to indicate that it is possible to return to that situation.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Has the hon. Member seen the balance sheet published by Swiss-Air in the last week showing not a big profit but nevertheless a net profit on the year's working?

Mr. Davies: What competition is there inside Switzerland against Swiss-Air?

Air-Commodore Harvey: It is all external.

Mr. Davies: Our position is that we must face the fact that owing to a series of misadventures B.S.A.A. has lost the ability adequately to serve the Latin American countries, that for reasons for which it is in no way responsible—we pay tribute to its record in many particulars—it has now lost its traffic and a very large amount of the goodwill, and that whatever its past success has been, so far as the future is concerned, it is now severely handicapped. What we have to ask is how air communications between this country and that continent can be restored by the quickest means, and how they can be established efficiently and economically, and ultimately extended.
The answer has been given most convincingly by the Parliamentary Secretary. The arguments put forward by the Opposition have in no way succeeded in demolishing his case. The test must surely be whether the merging of these two Corporations in any way interferes with the Government's declared aim about civil aviation and if it does not interfere, whether it in any way furthers it. Our aim clearly is to establish the most economical and efficient operation of civil aviation along commercial lines. In view of the circumstances, the merger which is now taking place is the only way in which that can now be established. The Opposition should remember that on the establishment of the three Corporations not only was there no real enthusiasm for the three Corporations by

the Opposition but stress was laid on the fact that it might be a temporary arrangement and that there was nothing permanent about the establishment of three. For instance, the Lord President of the Council said at the time that if future experience should show that three were too many, and that two or even one would be enough, modification could be made. In the White Paper it was clearly pointed out that the arrangement proposed was a flexible one.
While I think the case for this Bill has been adequately made out, and I do not see any alternative to the merging of these two Corporations in view of the combination of circumstances, I think it gives an opportunity for the Minister to re-examine his relationship to the Boards, and the administrative relationship between the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the two Corporations which will exist after the passage of this Bill. Up to the present the relationship between the Minister and the Corporations has been far closer than we were led to believe would be brought about when the Bill was discussed before this House. In all fairness to the Opposition, one can say that they argued that the Minister was given wide powers and would, in effect, direct these three Corporations. Although he has done so, he has not done it by using the powers given in the Act, but by more informal and consultative means.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Sacking the Chairman.

Mr. Davies: I believe that some difficulties from which the three Corporations have suffered have in part been due to the ill definition of this relationship, and uncertainty as to where the actual responsibility lies; that in all the public Corporations set up there is established the principle that the Boards appointed by the Minister shall be independent as far as possible of interference in day to day administration, and that the appointing Minister shall only have the powers provided in the Act—that is the general directing power when it is necessary to exercise it in the public interest. In this respect the Civil Aviation Act did not differ from other nationalising Measures except that, in so far as civil aviation would have to be subsidised, there was provision for providing the Minister with estimates of expenditure and revenue and their programme.
Quite clearly, however, all public Corporations, including those set up by the Civil Aviation Act, are theoretically operationally independent of the Government and not subject to Ministerial interference except to the extent that the Minister can give directions. In the case of civil aviation, rightly or wrongly, it is clear that the Minister has interpreted the national interest as affecting the whole operation, policy and planning, including the day to day administrative affairs, as being in the national interest. The Boards have consequently been deprived to some extent of that freedom of action and willingness to exercise enterprise and initiative which they might have shown had they been left freer from interference from the Minister or the Ministry of Civil Aviation. On paper there is no question that the Boards are responsible equally for policy and planning and general operations, but in practice the Minister has assumed a voice in those functions. That has had a restricting effect on the general development of civil aviation in this country. The Minister has, in effect, become more of the managing director or chairman of the Civil Aviation Corporations than simply the Minister using his powers rarely, and only when necessary in the public interest.
What I am fearful of is that after this merger takes place, if that situation continues, the new board might continue to be somewhat inhibited, possibly frustrated, through the lack of definition of its relationship to the Minister and where its responsibility begins and ends. It will be looking over its shoulder continuously and acting cautiously for fear of interference or because of the necessity to consult the Minister at every stage. I suggest that we have to make up our minds either that the Board has to be free from Ministerial interference, except in the directions laid down in the Act, or that it shall come under the direction of the Minister completely. In other words, the compromise which has been reached in the case of civil aviation cannot work as effectively as can either complete freedom from interference or operation as a Department of the Minister. As far as administration of nationalisation is concerned, we have either to revert to direct departmental control along Post Office lines or maintain that freedom for operations which was originally intended and provided for.
A strong case can be made out in the case of civil aviation for the operation of the Board more as a Department of the Ministry of Civil Aviation than as an independent board. The reason why I advance that is because I think there is a difference between an industry free from subsidy and dependent on public money for its successful operation, as is civil aviation, and those nationalised industries which are supposed to operate commercially successfully and to pay their way. So, while I do not think one can reach final decisions on this matter, with this merger taking place, the time has come for the Government seriously to reconsider the question of the operation of civil aviation either as a Department or with greater freedom, and to bear in mind the fact that there is a difference between those industries which are subsidised and those which do not require subsidisation.
As I have stated, I think this Bill is necessary in view of the special circumstances which have arisen. We now have an opportunity of starting a new chapter in civil aviation development, and if initiative and enterprise is left to the Board, then we shall have a new era of success.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: The hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) has over a good many years given much attention to the proper form of organisation of a socialised industry, and he always writes and speaks interestingly on that subject. I agree with him that the most unsatisfactory feature of nationalisation so far is the undefined nature of the relations between the Ministers and the public Corporations. There have been many occasions on which I have felt exactly as he feels, and I expect this feeling has been given expression in the records of the Ministry of Civil Aviation. I would only say now that the person to whom his remarks ought to be addressed is unfortunately not in the Chamber, namely, the Lord President of the Council, who is the theoretician of the Labour Party on these matters.
I have tried to keep civil aviation, like the Colonies, out of the wide area of my disagreement with the Government. But I have been so intimately involved in the


setting up of the three airline Corporations and I feel so strongly about the virtues of having more than one Corporation that the House will not expect me to be silent this afternoon. I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary, however, that if I say some hard things it will be without malice and in a spirit of personal friendship to himself and to his noble Friend. I should also like to make it quite clear at the outset that, while I may have some criticisms to make of B.O.A.C., it is, despite its faults, the greatest airline in the world. When it leaves the ground it is superb; it is unsurpassed. Any criticisms I have to make relate to B.O.A.C. as chairborne, and not airborne. It is equally true that if I speak of the virtues of B.S.A.A., I am not unconscious of the defects which that organisation has also shown.
In my view the greatest need for civil aviation is peace in our time. I expressed that view on 26th February, 1948, and since that date there have been a very large number of convulsions in British civil aviation. I do not see how we can make any progress in the field of civil aviation if we are to have these continual changes. The story of British civil aviation since 1945 is a melancholy record of the intrusion of party prejudice into air commerce; of the triumph of dogma over common sense; of the victory of the crank over the expert; of the dominance of a small but determined party caucus over a feeble and ill-informed Cabinet.
The story began immediately after the advent of the present Government to power. Lord Winster and I had then to decide what policy we should recommend to Parliament for the organisation of British air services. We found that plans had already reached an advanced stage for three airline Corporations: one, the existing British Overseas Airways Corporation; the second, for services to Europe; and the third, for services to South America. Railway interests were to have a dominating share in the second and in the third a dominating share was to be taken by shipping interests. That was the position we found when we came into office. In order to get British aircraft flying the air routes of the world as quickly as possible, we decided to adopt this structure in its general outlines. Its threefold nature commended itself to us

in any case on merits. But in the light of the general endorsement given to public ownership at the General Election we decided to require that in the European and South American Corporations there should be a majority public holding. B.O.A.C., of course, was already publicly-owned in its entirety. I may add that the existence of the overseas rights already negotiated by British Latin American Airways, which has been referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary, was a minor factor in coming to that decision.
Looking back in the light of the sorry experience of the subsequent years I am more than ever convinced of the soundness of that policy. The railway and shipping interests accepted without demur the insistence on a majority public holding and would have co-operated wholeheartedly with us. The adoption of the general outline of the Swinton plan would have enabled the Opposition to have co-operated with the Government, and civil aviation could have been lifted out of party politics, with which it has nothing to do. I was very glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon ask that we should treat civil aviation not as a matter of party politics. Unfortunately, however, when I have completed my record tonight, it will be only too obvious how party politics have entered into this matter.
The existence of the three Corporations would have provided a measure of emulation—of "Socialist emulation," if that expression is preferred—and a yardstick to test efficiency. The presence of private money alongside public money would have been a check to the profligate administration which has already cost the taxpayer about £30 million.

Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Member did not say that in 1946.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I am saying that I did. That was the plan which, after mature consideration, Lord Winster and I put forward to the Cabinet. I propose to tell the House now why that plan was not adopted. But before doing so let me only say that we could have saved months of precious time, and, as part of a united national effort, we could have had British aircraft on the world routes before those of any other country except


the United States if that plan had been adopted. But what happened when Lord Winster presented this well-conceived plan, with the unanimous backing of well-informed opinion, to the Cabinet? In the first place, we discovered that the real power lay not in the Cabinet, but we were referred to a group of back bench amateurs comprised in the Civil Aviation Committee of the Labour Party. That body produced an egregious document called "Wings for Peace," which, they said, had been approved by the Labour Party Conference. I read the document. Never have I seen so much nonsense contained in so few paragraphs. It was the work mainly, I believe, of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo).

Mr. Mikardo: That reveals the soundness of all that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas) is now saying. I had no part in the preparation of that document and did not write a single word of it. That is a measure of the reliability of the information and arguments now being put before the House by the hon. Member.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Naturally, I accept what the hon. Member says——

Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Member has no alternative.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I made it clear that, at this point, I was referring to matters outside my own direct knowledge. The hon. Gentleman certainly had a great deal to do with the advocacy of that document. Transport House could not supply me with any proof that the Labour Party Conference had in fact ever approved the document. If it was so approved, as I must assume was the case, it was presumably, right at the end of the Conference whilst such delegates as remained were singing "The Red Flag."

Mr. Rankin: I want to be specifically clear on one allegation or statement which the hon Gentleman has made. He says that a Minister of the Government and himself approached the Cabinet with a well-conceived scheme and that instead of considering that scheme and coming to a decision on it the Cabinet referred him to a group of back benchers. I happen to be one of that group, and this is the

first occasion I have heard of that happening.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: If the hon. Member considers the matter he will realise that, obviously, he did not know as much as I did on the subject. I have chosen my words very carefully and I adhere to them. I want to make it clear that this is how public policy has been formed under the present administration.

Mr. Rankin: Would the hon. Member say whether or not this procedure actually took place and that the Cabinet directed him to do as he says?

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I have given my statement to the House and have said that I have no reason to withdraw a single word of it. The hon. Gentleman can read it again in HANSARD. The main facts were, indeed, correctly set out at the time in an article by Mr. Courtenay Edwards, in the "Daily Mail" of 3rd November, 1945, under the heading, "Rebels changed the Air Plan." As neither Lord Winster nor I have spoken a word in public about this miserable business to this day, I presume that the information came from the rebels themselves.

Mr. Mikardo: Why did not the hon. Member resign?

Mr. Ivor Thomas: That question was, naturally, very much in my mind. The conditions in which a junior Minister should resign have been laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), and they are exceptional. A Minister who is always threatening to resign is very tiresome. Lord Palmerston certainly said that he had set his chimney afire with Mr. Glad-stone's letters of resignation. That may be considered a good precedent but the general view is that resignation is an ultimate, and not an immediate, weapon.

Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Member left it too late.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: After mature consideration I have put the House in possession of these facts as this raises questions far wider than civil aviation affecting the whole nature of government in this country since 1945. This is how the industry came to be nationalised. I would only observe further at this point


that when the Civil Aviation Bill was drafted the rebels did not have it all their own way. By not forbidding private enterprise companies, and by leaving a wide field of aerial work open to them, and by leaving open the possibility of using private enterprise companies as agents for the Corporations, it would in fact be possible to carry out any policy desired by the Government of the day even to the point of complete denationalisation.

Mr. Beswick: If that is the case, will the hon. Member tell the House whether, when he used the following words on 6th May, 1946, he was being compelled to do that contrary to his own judgment and his own conscience? The hon. Member said:
Today, over a wide field, private enterprise has exhausted its utility and become a stumbling block to economic advance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1946; Vol. 422, c. 728.]
Am I to understand that in using those words he was using words with which he disagreed?

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I have made it abundantly clear on many occasions that there is a proper field for public enterprise and a proper field for private enterprise. We have been reminded this evening how a Conservative Government set up B.O.A.C. in the first place. If the right method had been adopted in the first place, it would have enabled us to get the air routes of the world much more quickly and would have saved millions of pounds of the taxpayers' money. I could give many more instances of the way in which a weak Cabinet have yielded to the dictates of their back bench masters, but perhaps that is enough for this evening. The Minister's portfolio has been passed practically along the whole thin red line of Socialist peers——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): This has nothing to do with the Bill before the House.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I am sorry if I have not made myself clear, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was about to say that each new Minister has felt it necessary to have an orgy of purging and these continual changes are very upsetting for civil aviation. It is particularly unfortunate that the present Minister, for whom I have great respect, has felt it

necessary to make this fundamental change once more in British civil aviation. If that is out of Order, I should be very surprised. The rebels to whom I have referred were almost as strongly opposed to three Corporations as they were to the inclusion of private money in the scheme. In their joy at getting nationalisation of scheduled services, they did not press the point at that time, but the Labour Party, as made clear by the hon. Member for Enfield this evening, has always had a hankering for one big Corporation and that hankering has now triumphed. Despite much talk about not having——

Mr. Ernest Davies: I appreciate the hon. Member giving way. I should like him to inform me when I made a statement to that effect. I made no reference to the formation of one big Corporation.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I am sorry if I have misunderstood the hon. Member. Other hon. Members have expressed this sentiment, and I understood him to have approved the idea of one big Corporation. If I am mistaken, of course I withdraw at once; but I repeat that the party opposite have always had a hankering for one big Corporation. In fact, the Labour Party always falls for the fallacy of size. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W J. Brown) says "the heresy of size." I think it is both a heresy and it is a fallacy. It is certainly a fallacy that efficiency goes with size——

Mr. Beswick: We said that at the last Election.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: The hon. Member often says things which are true and I am glad to have his agreement——

Mr. Beswick: And I was saying that it was in an official Labour Party pamphlet.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Whatever may appear in pamphlets, the tendency of the party opposite is undeniable. It is always to create large units of administration. That, surely, is the argument behind bulk purchase and nationalisation and so on; and, in my experience, there was a hankering after one big Corporation. In my view, this tendency is unfortunate and damages efficiency. It leads to a growth of bureaucracy and makes impossible that personal responsibility


and that decentralisation of decision which have been singled out by Lord Keynes as being the most valuable features of private enterprise.

Mr. Rankin: Mr. Rankin rose——

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I have given way a great deal——

Mr. Rankin: Just one question——

Mr. Ivor Thomas: No, I do not think I ought to give way again. Apart from the Labour Party's hankering after one big corporation, B.O.A.C has never reconciled itself to the existence of B.S.A.A. This is just a case of "Empire building." Even when the Government policy was announced, it never reconciled itself to the existence of B.S.A.A. It did not take such strong exception to B.E.A.C., which it felt was "bone of its bone, flesh of its flesh." But I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) that if there is a reduction to two Corporations, before very long there may be a reduction from two to one. I am sorry I cannot accept the assurance given this evening by the Parliamentary Secretary because I remember that on 26th February, 1948, he made a most enthusiastic defence of three Corporations and strongly denied rumours that there was to be a merging of the Corporations. In the light of past assurances, we cannot take tonight's assurance as being any more valid. I think the proposed merger is the result of this double pressure from the Labour Party on one side and B.O.A.C. on the other.
If there is to be a merger, is the right Corporation being suppressed? In the two years from 1946 to 1948, B.O.A.C. had a loss of £15,168,283, and B.S.A.A. had a loss of £348,796. In the same period B.O.A.C. cost the taxpayers £14,376,844 and B.S.A.A. cost the taxpayers only £260,000. In speeches which I need not repeat, I have used B.S.A.A. as a yardstick by which to measure the other Corporations and the figures are conclusive evidence of the greater efficiency of B.S.A.A. The accident record of B.S.A.A. is certainly bad. But I must make it quite clear that it has nothing to do with the crews, the ground staff, the management or the organisation of British South American Airways. The fault for the major disasters clearly lies

in the aircraft. The causes may never be discovered and after the remarkable accident recently to the K.L.M. aircraft, a Constellation piloted by one of the ablest pilots in the world, one cannot be surprised that these disasters do occasionally happen. The fault cannot be that of the management or the staff of B.S.A.A. Indeed, these accidents have all been inquired into by the Chief Inspector of Accidents of the Ministry of Civil Aviation, and he has not suggested that any responsibility attaches to the management or the staff.
Let us turn to some of the qualities that exist in this Corporation now to be suppressed. In the first place I should put their keenness—and I put tremendous emphasis on this. It has been most heartening to have worked with B.S.A.A. I remember the remarkable way in which they started operating services from London Airport on 1st January, 1946, and how they started the South American service in March, 1946. Those were very remarkable achievements so soon after the war. We have heard this evening, by implication at all events, how they operated that most difficult route from the Azores to Bermuda, perhaps the most difficult leg for civil aviation in the whole world. I recall their readiness to undertake the most difficult charter flights, which at the request of the Foreign Secretary we had to ask them to undertake. I think also of the way in which they undertook experiments in flight refuelling after B.O.A.C. had been asked to do so and had felt unable to undertake them at that time. In all these matters there was a tremendous keenness in B.S.A.A., which it will be a great pity to lose in civil aviation.
Another most important factor was their readiness to use British aircraft. I am sorry to say this, but I think I ought to do so: I discovered a prejudice somewhere in B.O.A.C.—I never located exactly where because of the nature of the relations of the Minister with the Corporations—against British aircraft. May I put it this way: B.O.A.C. appear to use two pairs of spectacles, one for British aircraft, another for American aircraft. B.S.A.A. not only insisted on using British aircraft but had a very strong commercial sense and showed that a nationalised Corporation, using nothing but British aircraft, could pay its way.


It was a remarkable achievement, and I suspect that this was the real offence of B.S.A.A. in the eyes of B.O.A.C.
Then there were the admirable staff relations of B.S.A.A.C.

Mr. Mikardo: Oh.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: The staff, many of whom are known to me, were as keen as mustard on their job, and, as many hon. Members have borne witness at different times, there has been a feeling of frustration among many of the staff of B.O.A.C. which did not exist in B.S.A.A., where the men were extremely keen on their work.
Must we suppress all these things? Are they to be lost? Let us not believe that this is a merger on a footing of equality. The Bill is quite emphatic about that; it is a Bill for the dissolution of B.S.A.A.C.; it is to be absorbed into B.O.A.C. That is a matter for extreme regret. If we are to have changes they should be, as the White Paper, Cmd. 6712, set out, in the direction of creating additional Corporations. No hon. Gentleman on the other side who has quoted that White Paper seems to have noticed para. 8, which says:
The Corporations will not compete with each other on the same route or in the same area and the desirability of creating additional operating units will be considered as expansion of services or the needs of particular services appear to justify.
That is the direction in which, if we are to have changes, we should progress.
It might be desirable to split up B.O.A.C. into smaller units. In general, it will be found that the larger unit is the less efficient and that the smaller unit is the more efficient. I should have liked to have seen B.S.A.A. made a little larger than it was made by giving it the West African services, but that view did not prevail. B.O.A.C. is certainly too large; it is a mammoth organisation and rather top-heavy. It is impossible for one or a few men properly to control such a vast organisation.
Those are the reasons which lead me to oppose the Bill. In view of the part which I took in the original proposal, no one will expect me to do otherwise. I oppose the Bill because I think it carries dogma into the field of civil aviation. I think there is bound to be an increase in the

large deficits which British civil aviation has incurred. The Minister of Civil Aviation has set a target of £5½ million as the maximum deficit of the three Corporations in the present financial year. If this Bill means that in future the South American services are to incur losses on the same scale as the other services of B.O.A.C. that figure will be greatly exceeded, as will the limits set in the Civil Aviation Act. I do not think that this is a Bill which will promote the interests of civil aviation, and I feel bound to oppose it as strongly as I possibly can.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Mikardo: We have a rather charming convention in this House of trying to begin every speech by making a reference, if possible complimentary, to the hon. Member who has preceded one. I find it extremely difficult to follow that convention in respect of the rather nauseating turncoat performance to which we have just listened. The only observation which I will permit myself on the speech of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas) is that if the moral crisis, through which he seems to be passing, has got him into such a psychiatric state that it can only be satisfied by self-flagellation, I wish he would not undertake his hobby in public, where it turns other people's stomachs over. It is most surprising that we should have to listen to all the arguments against which the hon. Member argued with such force in 1946 now being trotted out as though they were his own property.
It is a little unfortunate that a good deal of this Debate has been taken up with rather odious comparisons between B.O.A.C. and B.S.A.A.C.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It was raised by the hon. Member.

Mr. Mikardo: I am coming to that. Each of these two Corporations has had some qualities which were denied to the other, and each has had some defects not shared by the other. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) showed one side of the case only. That was why I intervened and tried to show him that there is another side to the case. I am the last to wish to denigrate the fine qualities which B.S.A.A.C. developed, but that is not what we are discussing. But even if B.S.A.A.C. was perfect, as it was not, and if B.O.A.C. was totally


reprehensible, and it is not, it might be necessary, in order to improve the efficiency of the industry as a whole, to merge the two.
The question to which we should direct our attention is not whether the one has some virtue which the other has not, but whether the interests of the nation are best served by the merger. People who now loudly sing the praises of B.S.A.A.C. have themselves put forward different views in the past. We have heard the hon. Member for Keighley talking about the great drive and leadership of Air Vice-Marshal Bennett. I well recall the time when he complained to Members of the "caucus" about which he was speaking that every time he as Parliamentary Secretary wished to consult the chairman of B.S.A.A.C., he found that he had got into an aeroplane and had flown to the other side of the world.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I never mentioned Air Vice-Marshal Bennett this evening, and I never made any such complaint.

Mr. Mikardo: Oh, yes; the hon. Member did. The hon. Member talked about the excellent staff relations in B.S.A.A.C. It is extremely interesting to note that the only Corporation which employees have found it necessary to take to the Industrial Court has been B.S.A.A.C., and that was in the days of the Chairmanship of Air Vice-Marshal Bennett. The only occasion on which the industry has had an engineering dispute which has not been settled without going to the Industrial Court, with all its panoply, has been in the case of B.S.A.A.C., under the chairmanship of Air Vice-Marshal Bennett, which does not in the least suggest that staff relationships are better there than in the other two Corporations. [An HON. MEMBER: "He was not chairman."] I beg the pardon of the House—Chief Executive.
We are, as I tried to say earlier on, concerned here only with whether this change is in the interests of the industry as a whole, and on that point I would say that the only thing wrong with the proposal is that it has come far too late. It is a belated recognition by the Government of the force of the arguments put forward from these benches, which were talked down by the Lord President of the Council and the hon. Member for

Keighley—what a queer combination that looks now—and which in the light of events have proved to be quite right.
What was it that we said in 1946? We said that there was no great virtue in centralisation or de-centralisation. Some people talk as if a religion can be made out of one or the other; that one must be 100 per cent. right, and the other 100 per cent. wrong. Practical people know that the question of centralisation or de-centralisation in carrying out a given function in a given organisation must be considered entirely on the merits of that particular case. Sometimes it is best and most desirable to centralise some and de-centralise others. The argument in 1946 was that no matter how many Corporations there were, they should work together jointly to carry out together certain activities which could be better carried out in unison than separately.
The Government White Paper, Command 6712, which has been referred to, forecast that there would be changes between the three Corporations in carrying out certain functions. It listed two such functions as examples; the maintenance of aircraft and the training of air crews. The first of these two functions has never been carried out jointly by the Corporations. The second was for a short time, but because of the opposition of certain people in B.O.A.C., who wanted to be cocks of their own little dunghill, that was abandoned. If we had had the committee of chairmen of the three Corporations which was designed always to get joint working in all matters which, on the merits of the particular case, could best be carried out jointly rather than separately; if that had really worked; if we had had joint training, recruitment, and selection of training organisations between all three Corporations; if we had had maintenance centralised so far as possible, and so on, then this question which we are arguing now, as to whether there should be three, or two, or even one Corporation, would be quite an academic question.
The point that matters is that when we put forward these suggestions in 1946, we were told from both Front Benches that we were wrong. We heard a lot of talk, which, with great respect, can be described as nothing more than rubbish, about the competition between the three


bodies. How can there be competition between a Corporation flying large aircraft to Singapore and a Corporation flying small aircraft to Glasgow? There is no competition between them in any sense of the word. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford was talking about the possibility of another amending Bill which will remove all competition from the industry altogether. There is no competition in the industry, except of course with foreign operators.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was only quoting the Lord President who said this would give an element of emulation and free competition. I quoted that to intimate that we did not think there was anything like enough competition, but that what there is the Government are doing away with.

Mr. Mikardo: That point of view was argued passionately by the Lord President in 1946; and by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford this afternoon—otherwise I cannot see the basis of his opposition to the Bill. I say that the Lord President was wrong in 1946, and I say that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford is wrong today when talking about competition between two organisations which sell quite different things. We would not talk about competition between two railways one running between New York and San Francisco and the other between Paris and Calais. We would not talk about competition between a firm selling tractors and another firm selling stockings. There is as much difference between services spread over 10,000 miles and services spread over 200 miles as there is between tractors and silk stockings. It is equal nonsense to talk about emulation as a basis of comparison. When we come to cost comparison, when it is a question of a change in the length of "hop," a change in the type of aircraft and the average speed, the possibility of any sensible cost comparison between one route and another is entirely done away with.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: Would not my hon. Friend agree that by having a number of Corporations there is scope for trying out various methods of staff control, so that happier relations may be achieved between the organisations comparing one with

another; and also that if one employee's face did not happen to fit in one Corporation, he would have the opportunity of showing his competence in another?

Mr. Mikardo: Certainly. My hon. Friend has mistaken me. I am not arguing in favour of one Corporation. I am reiterating the argument of 1946 for saying that one should not consider these things as a piece of centralisation dogma. If there is to be a division into a number of Corporations, the division into three was perhaps the most illogical division we could find.
Where did that division come from? It was taken over wholesale from the White Paper of Lord Swinton. He divided the proposed air routes not at all according to technical considerations, such as the length of "hop," the average speed or the type of aircraft. He divided the proposed air routes—as he said quite frankly, and as others have said this afternoon—entirely to give one bit to the shipowners and another bit to the railways. That is not a division of function; it is a financial division pure and simple, and we took it over holus-bolus. If the Lord President and the hon. Member for Keighley had come to the House honestly and said, "We shall save some time by taking over Lord Swinton's division," there might have been some sense in it. Instead, rather hypocritically they pretended that his division, made for financial reasons, held good for technical and functional reasons as well.
Now we are talking this afternoon of launching on its way a new Bill partly to correct the mistake made in 1946, and indeed to vindicate the views then put forward from these benches. I remember the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles)—before he removed himself from the arena of such controversy to the neutral office which he now holds with such great distinction—saying that of all the illogical things in this proposal, nothing was so illogical as to distinguish between the North and South Atlantic. In fact, all the considerations suggest that these two are better together. We find now that, for one reason or another, there are no aircraft to fly the South Atlantic and we are now doing what the hon. Member for Nuneaton said in 1946 we should have to do, and what the Lord President and others denied at that time.
I also wish to refer to the suggestion made from the benches opposite—and particularly by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford—that the employees of the airways Corporations, or a very large part of them, are opposed to this Bill. I share with the hon. Member the view that a Government cannot, of course, decide its policy entirely on the basis of what is thought by the workers in a particular industry; but I share also his view that the opinions of these workers are an important factor which must be taken into consideration. Where I differ from him is in his suggestion that the method that he has used to measure the views of the workers in the industry is the right method. I speak here as the only Member of this House who happens to be a member of the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport on which I represent one of the 14 unions who are parties to the National Joint Council and who between them have in membership the overwhelming majority of all the people employed by all the three Corporations. If the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford had really wanted to find out what was the view of the great majority of the people employed in the Corporations, he might have sought to find out what was the view of the National Joint Council.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: All we are concerned about now is the view of the men and women working for B.S.A.A. Does the hon. Gentleman say that the 14 trade unions among whom he sits represent the majority of the workers in B.S.A.A.? If he made an emphatic statement to that effect, it would have some value.

Mr. Mikardo: I was just coming to that. I do not want to be unfair and I know that the hon. Gentleman was talking mostly about B.S.A.A.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Only.

Mr. Mikardo: Yes, but this does not only concern people in B.S.A.A. This merger affects people in B.O.A.C. as well.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) said that people employed by B.S.A.A. were afraid that the resultant redundancy would reflect only on B.S.A.A. personnel. In fact, the Corporations have given the most categorical assurance that any redundancy caused by this merger will be shared out fairly between the two Corporations. Therefore, both Corporations and the workers are equally concerned in the

matter. I will answer the hon. Gentleman's question a little more directly. I do not know, and nor does he or anybody else, what proportion of people in the employ of British South American Air-ways belong to each organisation. Bona fide trade unions, for very good reasons, do not disclose their membership to anybody. Scab organisations, organisations which exist not for the proper trade union purpose of the protection of their members but for the benefit of the ambitions of one or two people, for political purposes, or for sabotaging the welfare of the industry—such organisations are only too ready not merely to disclose the number of their members but to claim as members a lot of people who have never been near them, and so they inflate their figures.
Therefore, I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question. I do not know whether the majority are in the 14 trade unions. I say that to the best of my knowledge and belief the answer to this question is "Yes"—that the National Joint Council represents the majority of the people in the employment of B.S.A.A. I am pretty sure that that is so. I cannot be sure, and nor can he, of the actual number because the number is not published. The National Joint Council, and the trade union side of it, support this merger. The fact that there is one dissident organisation which stands outside for purely political purposes ought not unduly to influence this House. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford began his remarks in this part of his speech by confessing that he did not know very much about trade union organisation. He then went on to prove the truth of what he had said by making a number of schoolboy howlers about trade union organisation. Before he got to talking about the Aeronautical Engineers Association, to whom he was referring principally and from whom he appears to have got his information, he at least twice referred to them as the Amalgamated Engineering Association—an organisation which does not exist at all.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It was a slip of the tongue.

Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Gentleman will find that on the record tomorrow, unless he finds some means of getting it corrected. In the second place, he


referred to this organisation as a trade union which was not affiliated to the T.U.C. because it did not want to be associated with a particular party. The hon. Gentleman ought to know by now, if he wishes to talk about trade unions, that an organisation is not automatically associated with a political party if it becomes affiliated to the T.U.C. and that in fact there are many unions affiliated to the T.U.C. which do not have any political arrangement with any political party. In the third place, he ought to know that the Aeronautical Engineers' Association have tried only too hard—it is not the case that they have been "upstage" and that they did not want to associate with the unions affiliated to the T.U.C.—to get into the National Joint Council machinery. But I am happy to say that on the National Joint Council we are rather particular of the company we keep and do not like associating with scabs and people of that sort. That, I think, disposes of the question of the attitude of the workers in this industry.
I wish to make one final point, which is that it is true that there is a good deal of unrest, especially at Langley, about this proposed merger. That unrest is greater now than it was even a few weeks ago. It is greater because the promises which were made to the workers' representatives that they would be fully consulted about all the matters arising out of the merger, at every stage of the merger, have not been kept and are not being kept.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford and others may be interested to know that within 48 hours from now I am going with the chairman of the National Joint Council to Langley at the request of the workers there. They want to know from us how far the promise to consult through a working party on all the details arising out of the merger has been carried out. I am very much afraid that if we have to tell the employees at Langley, as we should have to tell them unless there were a change within the next few hours, that these promises have been carried out in the letter and not in the spirit—not even in the letter at all times—there may be a great deal more unrest among the employees of B.S.A.A., and the Corporation may have a great deal more trouble in

implementing this Bill in practice than will be experienced in getting it through the House today.
I utter that word of warning in case it should turn out that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford is right and I am wrong. If matters turn out in that way it can only be because promises to consult properly with workers are not being carried out. If that turns out to be the ground of the workers' objections, I for one would fully support them.
I support this Bill because it seems to me to be right. It seems to effect an improvement in the industry and to put into operation a principle which is as right now in 1949 as it was in 1946 when it was first put forward from these benches. I support the Bill, but I do so with a consciousness that the carrying of it into detailed effect in the operation of the merger between the two Corporations will not be so easy in practice as it is to talk about on the Floor of this House; that many problems remain, and that it is to be hoped that some of these problems will be faced in future with greater zest, greater efficiency and a better spirit than has been the case over the last few weeks.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he say why he thinks that the promises made by the management to the B.S.A.A. employees have not been kept?

Mr. Mikardo: I am sorry if I have misled the House. They were not promises to B.S.A.A. employees. They were promises to the representatives of the workers on the National Joint Council as a whole, to operate the details of this change through a working party. If I had to guess at the reason why the promises have not been kept, I should say that it is that there still exist in certain of the Corporations some executives who do not like consulting their workers and that there has been a certain amount of resistance.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: I have been very interested in the speeches of the hon. Members for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) and Reading (Mr. Mikardo), because they have shown quite clearly that those hon. Members have been in favour in principle of this merger all along. In fact, it appears from what


they said that they would like to go a good deal further and see more co-ordination or even amalgamation than is contemplated in this Bill. That is in contrast to the attitude of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), who I am sorry to see is not in his place, and who made a very interesting speech in which I said, as indeed the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas) said, that B.S.A.A. was too small. In his earlier remarks, the hon. Member said he would have liked to keep it on, but he said he had been convinced by the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary that the aircraft situation made the merger necessary. Indeed, we rather gathered from the Parliamentary Secretary that, while he himself indicated that he had long been in favour of a merger between B.S.A.A. and B.O.A.C., what actually tilted the balance in favour of the merger with the other experts was simply this shortage of aircraft.
It seems to me that the essential feature of this matter is that that shortage of aircraft is a temporary one, though one cannot judge exactly the length of time it will continue. It also seems to me to be very fallacious and wrong to base the permanent pattern of civil aviation on what is in fact a temporary emergency. In passing, I might say one Would not know what were the objections on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary to the existence of B.S.A.A., but, from the remarks made by the hon. Member for Reading, it would appear that they were not altogether separated from the fact that B.S.A.A. has in a marked degree shown a spirit of independence and initiative which was exactly what we understood the three Corporations were set up to promote. That is now being done away with. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Enfield to say that we criticised the three Corporations because they did not provide enough competition. This Bill does away with that competition very much more, and that is why we on this side of the House are opposed to it.
I would like to refer to the main reasons given today and in the original statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary on 15th March for the merger. The House will remember that, to sum them up, the hon. Gentleman said that both Corporations operate long-range

aircraft and that their routes overlap and converge. He added today that both operated in the Western Hemisphere, and he also spoke about achieving maximum economy and efficiency, on which stress has been laid by several speakers, and which indeed is the aim of the Government, as it is the aim of any Government. May I deal with these points one by one? First of all, so far as the operation of long-range aircraft is concerned, will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us whether ultimately it is likely that the type of aircraft operated by B.S.A.A. and B.O.A.C. are likely to be the same, or, at least, similar? I suspect that permanent aircraft will be used in different parts.

Mr. Lindgren: The real problem is what is going to happen between now and when the D.H. 106 comes along.

Mr. Macpherson: I am of the opinion that the decision to amalgamate is not justified merely because of present difficulties, which could probably be got over in other ways and especially by the loan of aircraft from the other Corporation.
Secondly, on the question of the routes overlapping and converging, from what the Parliamentary Secretary said it seems to me that here again the overlapping is temporary. It may not be, but it seems unreasonable that we should continue to serve the Caribbean from the Northern route indefinitely. We should look forward to the time when the service is provided direct via the Azores to Bermuda. The sole justification for the merger on that score was the idea of having a kind of circus, in which planes would start and go round the route one way while another service goes round the opposite way. Again, that does not seem to be an adequate reason for not considering the retention of the seperate identity of B.S.A.A. Then there is the point about both Corporations operating in the Western Hemisphere. If I understand the projected organisation correctly, there is to be a separate South American division which will be quite separate from the Western division.

Mr. Lindgren: For a while.

Mr. Macpherson: For a while? I see. I take it that the Parliamentary Secretary is only envisaging one step at a time, but


I hope he will tell us tonight what is the ultimate aim.
Then there is the additional argument about achieving the maximum economy and efficiency. So far as economy is concerned, it was very noticeable that the Parliamentary Secretary thought that the economies were principally dependent on amalgamation. He said very few economies in staffing were to be expected. He said that the economies were dependent rather on improved technique and particularly on the use of new aircraft. That is common ground, and so it appears that any economies which are to be realised are not going to come about from the amalgamation. So far as efficiency is concerned, this point has been dealt with by several hon. Members opposite, but I hope we shall have from the Parliamentary Secretary a little more information on what the actual organisation is going to be. The fear which I have in my mind is this. It seems to me from what the Parliamentary Secretary said that, on the one hand, we shall have the sphere of operations divided up into divisions, and that we shall create Airlines which are overlapping with the divisions; that is to say, to a certain extent, one Airline will be supplying aircraft to two divisions, even although that particular Airline may be subject to the authority of one of those two divisions.
I should like to refer to the evidence of Mr. J. W. Booth, at present the Chairman of British South American Airways, who gave evidence to the Select Committee on Estimates in 1947. He was asked by the Chairman of the Sub-Committee:
What about maintenance? You do your own maintenance?
The answer to that was:
Yes, that is an absolute prime requisite. We are responsible for the condition of those aircraft. If somebody else were doing the work, we should never know whether it was right or wrong.
That seems to me to be most interesting. It is quite a different thing to envisage a Corporation of the size of this one and one of the size that B.O.A.C. is to be in the future. In the second case, we shall have an airline wholly responsible for the provision of the planes, the maintenance and all the rest, though the responsibility of operation is going to rest on someone else. It seems to

me that, given the size of B.O.A.C., that cuts right across the principle enunciated by Mr. Booth, and that we are going to run into trouble on that score.
I am not certain, of course, to what extent there has always been a feeling of antagonism between the Corporations, but one thing that is quite certain is that it is always disagreeable to be adversely compared with another Corporation. But that, again, was the very purpose for which we created the three Corporations as against the two. My hon. Friends have frequently made comparisons to the disadvantage of B.O.A.C.
Then there is the question of the redundancies. I would like to refer to what the Parliamentary Secretary said on that score on 15th March. He said:
Any staff redundancies resulting from the merger will be shared fairly between the two Corporations and in accordance with National Joint Council procedure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March. 1949; Vol. 462, c. 1924.]
As an expression of intention, we naturally accept that, but we are entitled to ask whether, in fact, it will work out in that way. The Parliamentary Secretary told us this afternoon that B.S.A.A. was being built up to handle the fleet of 19 Tudor aircraft expected this summer. That being so, their role is going to be much changed, particularly on the maintenance side, if they are now purely going to maintain the obsolescent aircraft—I do not know whether this is so; at the moment, I am merely asking the question, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give the necessary assurances for which my hon. Friends have asked—such as Yorks, Tudors for freight purposes, and Canadairs, because, as those aircraft become obsolescent, so, too, will the maintenance staff, and there may be a time when it will be much easier to get rid of them rather than of others who have already been fully trained in the maintenance of the new aircraft now being purchased. That is one of the reasons why it is so essential that the Parliamentary Secretary should make up his mind about the training of the B.S.A.A. maintenance staff in Canadairs or other aircraft which are to be maintained in this country. I hope he will tell us something about that, because there is not the slightest doubt that there is very great concern among those in B.S.A.A. about it, and possibly this may


be one of the matters to which the hon. Member for Reading was referring when he said that there had not been sufficient consultation.
I revert once again to what I said regarding the question of reaching a permanent decision on a temporary basis, which is, I think, the main question that we must ask the Parliamentary Secretary to answer tonight. I am also not at all happy about the methods that have been used to tone down criticism. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that, of course, there is a job to be done, but we cannot get away from the fact that people in a nationalised industry have two functions; first, they are there as workers, and, secondly, as citizens. As citizens, they are allowed to express their view as to how the public money should be spent and how the organisation should be run, and to exert such pressure as they think necessary, political and otherwise, to achieve their objects. It seems to me wholly wrong to curtail that right of criticism. I have been informed on good authority that pressure was brought to bear on certain members of the B.S.A.A. staff not to criticise in public. I think that is deplorable, and I hope it will not occur again. Unfortunately, the chance of adequate criticism in public has more or less passed now that the matter has come on to the Parliamentary plane.
In conclusion, I consider that it is up to the Parliamentary Secretary to demonstrate quite clearly that the change is in the interests not only of the immediate operation of the airlines, not only of the long-term efficiency and the long-term economy, but that it will result in itself, and quite apart from the considerations of which we know—additional new planes—in greater efficiency. That case has not yet been made out, and, unless it is, I shall most certainly go into the Division Lobby against this Bill.

7.16 p.m.

Major Vernon: I have listened to a great part of this Debate and with particular care to the objections to this proposal. On the whole, I do not find them very persuasive or very convincing. I have noticed three of them. The objection emphasised by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) was the temporary nature of the emergency which has led to this

change. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas) spoke about the "cult of bigness," and one or two other hon. Members have spoken on the general principle of competition.
With regard to the temporary emergency, it may be that circumstances occurring comparatively recently have influenced the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary in making this change now, but the advantages that have been presented seem to me to be pretty solid. Even though circumstances may change in the future, the arrangements at present in existence are not fixed and permanent, and it seems to me to be far easier to adapt a centralised organisation in order to give greater freedom to the divisions, as that may become necessary later on, than it is to weld three distinct organisations and to co-ordinate them towards the centre. I do not think that the hon. Member for Dumfries need be unduly worried that this organisation will be so rigid as to promote inefficiency in the future.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I was not arguing that it was going to promote inefficiency, but that the B.S.A.A. was demonstrably a much more efficient organisation than that with which it is being merged.

Major Vernon: I have not time to go into details of comparison, but I am not convinced that the general efficiency, taking everything into account—the accident rate, and everything else—of B.S.A.A. is so much better than that of B.O.A.C.
Coming to the "cult of bigness," I think that is just a gibe. I happen to have been connected with aviation from soon after the first world war, and I agree that in the early days there was a tendency for people to build bigger aeroplanes than they should have done. But, nowadays, there is so much experience available that reasonable people are not led away by the emotional attractions of bigness which the hon. Member for Keighley seems to attribute to our side, and which, presumably, he imagines are very far removed from the lofty intelligence of hon. Members opposite.
Thé argument about competition as used by hon. Members opposite is one of those arguments upon generalities and it does not seem to concern aircraft organisation in the very least. There is


only one way in which competition between aircraft can be obtained, and that is by having two sets of organisations operating over exactly the same route. We should then get direct comparisons, but everything would be duplicated and the idea would be ridiculously extravagant. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) pointed out, it is impossible to compare the efficiency of aircraft organisations on different routes. I happen to have done some work on statistical investigations and comparisons, and the people who have studied it most find it extremely difficult to get any relevant figures from the statistics which exist. In fact, the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) bore out this fact when he gave constants for different airlines, some of them three times as great as the other. The three-to-one ratios mean nothing. Obviously the conditions were very different. The notion of competition is something which does not really apply and it is of no value in this controversy with which we are dealing.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that our job this afternoon is to consider how best to organise this industry, and I want to make a contribution in that respect. Looking back over the history of civil aviation in Britain one sees very many changes in organisation. It has been almost like a trade cycle—reorganisation, great hopes, doubts, fears, despair, followed by a commission or some investigation to change the organisation, and then it starts again; the same cycle is repeated. In the early days we had competitive enterprise, subsidised enterprise, monopoly, the chosen instrument, the three Corporations, one Corporation—a sequence almost like the nineteenth century trade cycle. What one has to study nowadays is whether anything can be done to break this sequence.
It seems to me that there is one point where a change could be made, and it is in the appointments to the highest positions. I am one of those who think that the pattern of organisation is important, but it is not so important as the people who operate it. Imperfections in organisation may be overcome by the special ability, character and suitability of the people operating it. What we need most of all is to get the most suitable people in the highest

positions. What can we suggest? Where can we look for examples of a better method than that which has been used? We have them in front of us in the middle ranks of the Civil Service and in the appointments made by many local authorities. The first necessity is to spread the net as widely as possible. I think that all the important posts should be advertised so that everybody in the country who believes that he is suitable may have a chance of applying for a post. Then there must be found some method of selecting from this large number of applicants the few who have the utmost suitability.

Colonel Dower: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman include in the net those pioneers in aviation who have a vast amount of experience but who have been dead against the State taking over that industry?

Major Vernon: I happen to have been brought up with the pioneers in aviation. I have known them personally. I know their strength and their weaknesses. Some of them we used to call the robber barons because their predilection for profits overcame their desire to serve the public, but that is rather by the way. We passed through the pioneering days when many individuals broke out into new territory and achieved magnificent results. Now the subject is much more generally understood and there is a great deal more experience, but there is now a great deal more to be mastered before one can achieve the power to manage these great responsibilities fully.
On the subject of selection, there are the London County Council selections for heads of schools. There is also a selection committee in the Civil Service, and on these committees there is a large variety of people—specialists, non-specialists, officials, independent people who have eminence in some particular walk of life, and people with knowledge of the particular kind of work to be done by the successful applicant. This impartial body selects from the large number of applicants the small number who are most suitable, and in the working of this system it is most remarkable that generally, after the committee have heard the answers to the questions which they put, they get such close agreement as to the people who are most suitable.
We do not know very much about the present methods of selection for the Corporations. Presumably advice is given to the Minister by a comparatively small number of people. They may be very virtuous, but it is most unlikely that they can have any great technical knowledge such as is needed for this complicated and technical enterprise. Judging by results and by the great number of changes that have taken place, and also judging by the failures in the past, I do not think anyone can say that the selection has been a great success. I want to ask this question: Has the Minister still an open mind on methods of selection for the highest posts? I believe this is the one point where the application of the general intelligence of the community can be brought to bear so as to bring about beneficial changes in the most rapid manner.

7.28 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: When I first read this Bill, thought that there was nothing very bad in it, and I almost considered voting with hon. Members opposite. After all, this should not be regarded as a political Bill. We should all speak as passengers on the airlines and as taxpayers. But after listening to the speeches this afternoon, I am bound to come down on the side with which I always vote.
Let me deal, first, with this question of amalgamation. It does not necessarily follow that an amalgamation will be successful. I have had experience of companies amalgamating and being very successful. I have also had experience of larger companies going bankrupt and being split into smaller sections, the smaller sections doing very well. In theory, I do not think that size counts for everything. Of course, if we could reach a happy state where the aircraft would be landed on a field every minute or every five minutes, as has been done in the Berlin airlift, it would be very easy so to arrange our ground staff that the operation would be economical. At present, however, I think that if we took the diary of many of the ground staff on our aerodromes we should find that they spend hours of useful time hanging about waiting for a plane to land.
It does not even follow that road transport is always 100 per cent. economical. We may not know, when landing from a plane of a certain Corporation, that we

shall be able to get on a bus going from the air port to the city terminus, even if it is half empty. The other day I saw the Glasgow bus leaving for Kensington half-empty and I wanted to get on it and save 15 minutes, but I was told that I could not do so because it was the Glasgow bus. Of course, Scottish people are clannish and have a reputation for keeping themselves to themselves, but it would make for economy if all the buses were always full, though I know this is not possible. I agree with the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas) that the losses are probably not made in the air but on the ground.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) mentioned the overlapping of routes. I believe a certain amount of overlapping is a very good thing. After all, the trains and buses overlap on our routes and it makes for the convenience of passengers. I think it would be an excellent thing if some of our routes did overlap, perhaps in Bermuda and other parts of the world.
I was very glad indeed to hear the Parliamentary Secretary's remarks on this question of equal seniority, because here was a problem which I was afraid would arise. This amalgamation might be unfair either to members of British South American Airways or to members of B.O.A.C.; it might make for a lot of heart-burning. Now I understand, however, that this change will be made as fairly as possible; just as in the Civil Service, I understand, in the case of redundancy the last in is the first out. Given equal efficiency, I am very glad to learn that this principle will be followed.
Perhaps I might call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the position of some of his staff, the girls or young women who work the radar system. There is a certain amount of unrest, or perhaps a feeling of frustration, among these girls because they are not to become covenanted civil servants eligible for pension. Some of them are actually working for examinations in the Civil Service so that they may have a pension when they retire, because, after all, following the last World War, not even all attractive girls can necessarily expect to get married.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) mentioned flying


boats. There are other places as well as the Isle of Wight where flying boats are made; a good many are made by Short and Harland's in Belfast. I do not very often come in contact with people making them, but I happened to do so the other day when Princess Elizabeth visited Belfast, and I understand that they have a good order book and expect to do very well, especially in South America. I do not think any of us can forsee today what the future of flying boats will be in another five years. It may be that for certain services the flying boat will be found to be very much superior to the aeroplane.
The worst thing about these Corporations is this, as even this discussion in Parliament has shown. After a speech in public it is hard to change your mind. When directors hold a meeting they hold it in their directors' board room and they make their decisions in private and in the light of the best knowledge which is then available to them, but they are not afraid to go back on those decisions in another two or three years' time if other information becomes available. Here we see the worst point about all this nationalisation. Speeches are quoted in the House and people go back for five or even more years to quote from speeches made in the past. Yet in a system of transport which is going ahead as fast as is civil aviation, all those speeches may be out-of-date—just as out-of-date as is the old Caudron bi-plane with the 27 h.p. Anzani engine today when it is compared with a jet engine.
After all, all nationalised services do not do so badly. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) quoted the Swiss airlines as having made a small profit. I believe K.L.M. do better than we do and I understand that the United States of America do much better, although an American gentleman with whom I flew last Monday told me that every aerodrome in the United States was completely out of date. He said they are having to double them because civil aviation is going ahead so fast.
I think it would help the efficiency of our airways if we made better use of the private charter companies. That is the sort of thing that the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield could not say

and I have not discussed it with him, but I believe that in many of these small feeder services better use could be made of the charter companies. They might be able to make a profit where a big Corporation would make a loss. I believe that in the future, perhaps in three or four years' time, these Corporations may be broken up again into four—not two; for when we accept nationalisation it is not so much a question of whether it should be three or two. I believe it will be found that this new Corporation is too large altogether.
Everybody in the country wants these airlines to succeed. We want more air-minded people. Every satisfied passenger is our best advertisement. Every smash sets us back. The smashes which have occurred to the Tudor airliners have been a tragedy, for had we not had these smashes we should not be dealing with this Bill today. I hope that in the future the Corporation will do well because every one of us is interested in it. Before I conclude, I must say, as one who travels a good deal by air, that I see an improvement coming along steadily.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary is back in his place because I should like to comment favourably on his remark that this is not a political issue. I think we are trying to decide this matter, for or against a merger, on the merits of the case, and as such, even if I shall be a little critical of the Bill. I do not want to support the case for the Opposition, because their opposition to the Bill is on account of the fact that they speak in favour of private enterprise being given the job, whereas I speak against the Bill because I think it will not achieve the advantages suggested by the Parliamentary Secretary in making these nationalised undertakings more successful. That is a very important matter for those of us on this side of the House who wish to ensure, by every means possible, that these nationalised undertakings are a success.
It seems to me a pity that these arguments and technical proposals, and other suggestions from hon. Members on both sides of the House, cannot in some way be given consideration before the Government's decision is announced on a matter of this sort, because it is a highly


technical problem and it is always possible that the Government have not taken into account all the salient features before they announce their decisions by introducing such Bills.
I want to make one point in particular which, I think, has not been made in the Debate so far. First, however, I would say that my first reactions to this Measure when it was brought before the House were dead against it. I thought that we had had far too many changes taking place in the policy for civil aviation. The Government have shown such a variety of trends as to cause a sense of confusion amongst those trying to operate civil airlines. My fears were largely based on the fact that I think we are going forward towards a policy of over-centralisation. I agree with the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) that we cannot have any particular religion about centralisation or de-centralisation, but I think we can have very clear ideas when we see the development of the organisation, as it affects airlines, when it becomes over-centralised, because we have seen in the past the effects of over-centralisation. They are far too clear to ignore.
I tried, after my first reaction against the Bill, to check back as dispassionately as I could amongst the people who could advise me, including employees of the various Corporations, and those people who are considered to be experts in civil aviation who are outside the Corporations. I found that, on the whole, my objections to the Bill were substantiated. Having listened to the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary I must say that my fears are rather confirmed than removed, not so much by what he said, but by what he failed to say. I would comment here on the fact that he did not make any reference at all to any sensible alternative to this merger.

Mr. Lindgren: There is not any.

Mr. Cooper: I am glad my hon. Friend admits that, because it gives point to the argument I wish to use. So far as I can discover, no consideration was given, on the purely technical grounds of operating airlines across the Atlantic, to the possibility of British South American Airways being given a bigger job to do—being given both the North and South Atlantic operations to undertake.

I think that if that had been done the Bill would not have been necessary, and that the Government would have come forward with a different decision. Rather than submerge British South American Airways in B.O.A.C., they would have done the other thing, and given the Atlantic operations of B.O.A.C. to one Corporation running British-American air services.
I believe, from such indications as we have had from the pronouncements of Ministers from time to time, that this decision before the House is not a unanimous Cabinet decision—if we can judge by the pronouncements of such Ministers as the Lord President of the Council. I would analyse for a moment the arguments for this merger. The first, of course, is that we have not suitable aircraft which British South American Airways can use to enable them to do their job properly. That is a purely temporary state of affairs. In time, suitable aircraft would have come forward undoubtedly for British South American Airways. I think it is a great pity to make a permanent decision to submerge British South American Airways, and to base that decision on what is a purely temporary consideration.
Another argument in favour has been that the merger will save overheads. I am not at all certain that this question of saving overheads is being analysed as fully as it ought to be. In B.O.A.C. we have a number of employees on what is called "paid leave," and who have been so for an unconscionable time. That does not indicate that the question of saving overheads is being considered by that particular organisation which is going to absorb B.S.A.A. There is a provision in the Bill for a second vice-chairman. That seems to me to be going against the suggestion that the merger will save overheads. It seems to me a great pity, from the employees' point of view—which, I think, has not been very adequately or sufficiently considered by the Government—that no provision is made in the Bill for their possible redundancy also. So far as the top-level people are concerned there is provision, but there is no provision in the Bill for protecting the rank and file workers from the fear of redundancy.
One of the suggestions in favour of the merger is that we shall not be losing the


lessons that can be learned from British South American Airways' methods of operations. If that is a valid argument, that it is right and proper to take advantage of those lessons, surely it is a valid argument for maintaining B.S.A.A., or a similar Corporation—a third Corporation—in being, so that the other Corporations can continue to learn lessons from the alternative methods of organisation and operation. I often wonder if, in fact, the higher standards of proficiency which, by and large, have been achieved by B.S.A.A. are acting as a sort of thorn in the side of B.O.A.C., and it may well be that that is why, consciously or subconsciously, the arguments have been used in favour of the merger. It was suggested that overlapping will be reduced. I do not believe that to be a strong argument. The only place where it might occur is in Bermuda, and undue overlapping is a small point to remedy, and does not require the bringing in of a Bill.
Let us consider the arguments against amalgamation. First, I suggest that the Government's policy in the past has been to retain the principle of several units, so that there may be some comparisons between their methods and types of operations. Reference to this matter has been made by various speakers, and so for the record I should like to quote quite briefly from the remarks made by the Lord President on 6th May, 1946. He mentioned this point, and said:
We wish to introduce and develop in the industry the spirit of emulation, of gathering a varied experience, and a certain degree of competition between varying undertakings. …
I know that that has been spoken against by the hon. Member for Reading. The approach of the Lord President and that of the hon. Member for Keighley are vastly different. I would not agree to linking up these two approaches. I did not believe that the arguments were strong which he used against the Lord President's proposals. The Lord President went on to say:
… there being three Corporations, they will have varying ways of doing a number of things. They will acquire a varied experience, and, in our judgment, that is distinctly of advantage, particularly in a new industry of this sort.
The last point that my right hon. Friend made, which is relevant to my case, was:

… it is my firm belief that Socialistic enterprise, particularly in a newish and developing industry like this, is a good thing, and that the element of emulation and legitimate competition should be provided for in the sphere of public ownership. My conclusion, therefore, is that the Government's proposals are logical. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1946; Vol. 422, c. 606.]
If the Government's proposals were logical at that time, then the Government are putting forward a somewhat illogical case at the present time, and it is because of my firm conviction on that point that I speak as I do.
A further argument against amalgamation is that which I made in interrupting the hon. Member for Reading. The point I made was, Is the employee protection, in reducing the number of Corporations, really adequate to ensure that the individual worker in this nationalised industry does not labour under a perpetual fear that if he criticises the management in any way, shape or form he runs the risk of being thrown out of the only place where he can obtain similar employment? That is a very real issue. I have spoken to many employees in a number of our nationalised industries, and in talking with employees of organisations such as the B.B.C., these airline Corporations, and only a week ago to a group of employees of the nationalised railways at York, I find they have a very real fear of victimisation should they take a different line from that laid down, sometimes very autocratically, by the existing managements. I therefore suggest that it would have protected the individual workers to a far greater degree to have had a number of Corporations rather than reducing the number, as we are now doing, to two. I feel that the policy being followed at this moment is working towards, not the industrial democracy which the Lord President of the Council continually preaches, but very much towards autocracy in excelsis. That is the effect at any rate on the mind of the individual worker.
A further argument against amalgamation is the need for continuity of policy and of personnel. If we compare the standards of achievement of airline operations in this country with that of other countries, we find a very great dissimilarity over continuity. The most successful airline operating organisations of other countries have persisted in and consistently pursued a clear policy which has


been understood by all; and they have retained in the chief positions people who have continued that policy over a considerable period of years.
Let me very briefly indicate exactly what has happened as regards continuity of policy in this country. In 1919 there were four companies in existence. In 1924 they were amalgamated into one company, Imperial Airways, which was then a monopoly undertaking backed by the Government. In 1936 there emerged another company, British Airways, thus making two companies running airlines in this country. In 1938 those two companies were amalgamated into B.O.A.C. In 1945 there were three Corporations, which now, in 1949, are being reduced to two. What sort of impression is created in the minds of the workers in these industries when they see these perpetual changes in Government policy? I am arguing this case on the purely technical ground, because this perpetual change in policy can be laid primarily at the door of the Governments in power before the present Labour Government.
As a further argument against this amalgamation, I would cite my belief that the less efficient organisation—and this is the testing point—is apparently absorbing a more efficient organisation. Let me quote the sort of things that I suggest are palpable inefficiencies, which should not arise, in the organisation of B.O.A.C. I refer particularly to the Western Division, because it has to perform a task similar to that performed by B.S.A.A. Previously in this House I have referred to the wastage of dollars that occurs because of the policy pursued by the Western Division. The Parliamentary Secretary informed me, in answer to a Question, that, between my first suggesting that the base should be brought back from the American side to Filton, for operating the Western Division and maintaining the aircraft there, and the eventual decision being taken by the Corporation to comply with that suggestion, 22 million dollars were expended. I know that taking an earlier decision would not have saved all those dollars, but it would have saved a very considerable proportion of them.
A further indication of my contention that B.O.A.C. are not living up to the standard of efficiency which we should expect is to be seen in their lack of action

when the "Queen Elizabeth" and the "Queen Mary" were held up in New York around Christmas time last year, when many passengers were desperately keen to get back to this country. What did the Western Division do? Did they switch as many aircraft as possible on to ferrying those passengers across the Atlantic? Not a bit of it. They continued their ordinary service; and at the same time they continued to use aircraft to bring back to this country personnel, their wives and children, and their baggage to Filton, instead of switching those aircraft, as they should have done had they been keen and on their toes, to carrying those stranded passengers and so earning dollars.
Why was this decision to amalgamate taken? On whose advice was it taken? Is it really a democratic decision, or has it been taken as a result of discussions by the Minister with one or two of the heads of the trade unions and the boards of the Corporations? Have they really got down to the rank and file and asked those who have technical competence in our civil airline operations? I suggest that the boards of the Corporations would, if asked, be pretty well bound to say that they agreed. B.O.A.C., the sort of boa-constrictor which is swallowing the little fellow, would obviously not say "No" to a nice fat meal. The board of B.S.A.A. would not object, because in any case the interests of the chairman will be safeguarded by a Clause in the Bill. The trade unions would have no objection, because they consider that it will result in the demise of a splinter union. I do not think that the Ministry would advise against it, because this same Ministry has been responsible for all the other muddled advice and changes in policy, or at any rate has been there while they were going on, during the last 20 or 25 years.
I believe that instead of this being a really democratic decision taken under a democratic system of operating these airlines, of the type the Lord President has suggested we should work towards under nationalisation, the decision that has been taken is an autocratic one. I have spoken to those responsible at a high level for this policy, and I was told only recently that if an employee, one of the rank and file, of one of these nationalised undertakings were continually to keep in close touch with a Member of this House—I


should like the Parliamentary Secretary to take special note of this point, and perhaps reply to it—and perhaps even give confidential information to that Member, if need be to use at his discretion—and Members' discretion should, I suggest, be respected—and should that be discovered, those responsible at the top would recommend that man's dismissal. I think that a most unfortunate attitude of mind to be adopted by those responsible at the top level, because it produces the sort of fear of autocracy to which I referred earlier.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Does that also apply to senior members of the Corporations?

Mr. Cooper: I do not follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question.

Air-Commodore Harvey: The hon. Gentleman said that if any employee consistently kept in touch with a Member of Parliament, he would be likely to lose his job. Does that apply to the more senior members of the Corporations?

Mr. Cooper: That is a question which ought to be put, not to me, but to those advocating that sort of policy. Presumably it may so apply. The point that was foremost in my mind when I heard of this attitude was that, during the war hon. Members were most anxious to protect their rights as Members of this House to hear from any man in the Forces who wished to contact a Member on any matter which it was right and proper for that Member to hear, so that there should not be victimisation of those men.

Mr. Daines: Could my hon. Friend tell us whether he has any evidence to justify his allegation? Secondly, did I hear him aright when I understood him to claim that it is proper for any employee of the Corporations to give a Member of this House secret and confidential information?

Mr. Cooper: Most certainly, yes. I distinctly remember that during the war—when I am sure my hon. Friend would admit we were all vitally concerned that secrecy should be maintained—on this very issue, which went to a Parliamentary Secretary for consideration, it was held to be right and proper for a Member of

this House to hear, if need be, secret and confidential information. That is, after all, a necessary protection which democracy gives to an individual, to prevent victimisation, to prevent the individual from becoming the victim of the system.

Mr. Sargood: I do not wish to misunderstand the hon. Gentleman, but is he claiming that a Member of this House has the right to set up his own personal organisation with a view to obtaining a constant supply of what might be confidential information?

Mr. Cooper: I am not suggesting that any Member of the House should make a special effort to set up his own grape vine system to obtain secret information, but I do say that a Member should not be precluded from obtaining information from any member of the public, especially those engaged in the nationalised industries, because where those industries become too monopolistic there is always the greater risk of victimisation.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the hon. Member is getting rather wide of the Bill. He must talk about what is in the Bill, and not about what is not in it.

Colonel Dower: On a point of Order. I do not wish to question your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but is it not a fact that the information which my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) obtained before the war about the danger of Germany to this country was obtained by exactly the same means as the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) has just described?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not before the House.

Mr. Cooper: As I said earlier, I believe the decisions whether or not to amalgamate should be taken on technical grounds. If that is so, we should realise that the world is a certain shape, that centres of population are where they are, that the Colonial Empire must be served and communications built up. If we analyse the situation from that standpoint we come inevitably to the conclusion, I think, that it would be of the greatest help to the development of our civil airlines if we were to increase, rather than to decrease, the number of Corporations. If we were to increase the number of


autonomous divisions or units which will operate in the five essential areas, each of which has distinct and separate technical aspects which must be taken into account, we should have one Corporation to operate the internal areas of England, a second to operate the European, Middle East and Mediterranean airlines, and a third to operate on the Empire air routes——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This Bill is designed to amalgamate or merge B.O.A.C. with B.S.A.A., and does not go any wider than that.

Mr. Cooper: I understand that, Sir, but if one is speaking against the Measure in some respects is it not right and proper to suggest alternatives? If that is so, would it not be proper for me to suggest the five alternative possibilities instead of the two in the Bill?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It would be outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Cooper: Very well; I will make this final point. I believe that if purely technical considerations had weighed with the Minister in deciding whether or not this merger should take place, the decision would have been to increase rather than to decrease the number of Corporations which would operate our airlines in various parts of the world.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. George Ward: The Parliamentary Secretary has come to the House today to ask us to pass a Bill to amalgamate one airways Corporation with another; in other words, to perform a major grafting operation in the constitution of our civil airlines. This major operation is one which we should consider carefully before we consent to its being carried out. The Parliamentary Secretary gave various reasons for asking us to approve this Measure, and what we have to do is ask ourselves whether those reasons are sufficient to justify this major operation and whether the objects which the Bill seeks to achieve can or cannot be achieved by the Bill.
We have been told that the first object of the Bill is that it is to deal with a situation created by the withdrawal of the Tudor aircraft from passenger services; and the second object is to achieve maximum efficiency and economy in

B.O.A.C. I do not think we need take the first reason too seriously, because the hon. Gentleman himself admitted, in his opening speech, that the Minister had for some months past been considering this amalgamation quite irrespective of whether the Tudors were withdrawn or not. The question of the Tudors withdrawal is being used as an excuse for carrying out a merger which the Government have wanted to carry out for a considerable time. On the other hand, the Parliamentary Secretary explained that the Tudors' withdrawal was the decisive factor which had tipped the scales in favour of amalgamation, so perhaps it is a reason which deserves a little examination. Let us ask ourselves whether the proposed merger is the best way to deal with a situation which has arisen as a result of the withdrawal of the Tudors.
Personally, I cannot believe that it is, because the situation is purely one created by the temporary shortage of aircraft. It is a problem which concerns the total number of aircraft available, whether they belong to B.S.A.A. or B.O.A.C. If the withdrawal of the Tudors from passenger service has made certain of our routes impossible to operate, it will still be impossible to operate those routes until we get more aircraft, with or without this Bill. The merger by itself could not possibly provide us with more aeroplanes, unless B.O.A.C. happen to have some to spare. If they have we would like to know why they have them to spare. If they have it would have been easy to solve the problem by transferring some, either by sale or charter, to B.S.A.A.
The Parliamentary Secretary made great play about the need of flexibility on the North and South Atlantic routes in order to cope with seasonal traffic peaks. He maintained that this flexibility would be best achieved by having all long-range aircraft under the one Corporation. There may very well be something in that. I agree with the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper), and perhaps with the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) that there may very well be a case for some sort of reorganisation of the three Corporations. I have felt for some time that B.O.A.C. is very much too big and unwieldy compared with the other two Corporations, and especially as compared with B.S.A.A. I do not necessarily accept the solution


put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas) that the North African route should be given to B.S.A.A. There may be a case for having an Atlantic Corporation to look after the North and South Atlantic routes, and having an Empire Corporation and a European Corporation. That would have great advantages. It would make all three Corporations approximately the same size, and it would also simplify and facilitate the training of aircrew and engineers, because we should then be able to concentrate all the very long-range aircraft in one Corporation, all the medium and fairly long-range aircraft in another Corporation and all the short-range aircraft in the third Corporation. I can see that there would be some advantages in that.
Therefore, I do not maintain dogmatically and rigidly that we ought to stick exactly to the three Corporations as they are at present constituted. We have never considered that they were the be-all and end-all of State airline possibilities. On the other hand, we have maintained and still do that B.O.A.C. is very much too big, and by grafting B.S.A.A. onto it we shall merely make it bigger. I am told that one of the main objections to having an Atlantic Corporation is that dollar paying passengers flying from New York through London to Empire routes, such as to Australia, will dislike changing aircraft in London, or in other words that they like to be carried all the way through in one aircraft. If I want to fly from here to San Francisco, I do not find it any particular hardship to fly from here to New York by B.O.A.C. and the rest of the way on another line. I can book my passage all the way through in sterling from London. I do not propose to press the point, except to say it rather astonishes me that we have not heard anything about it in this Debate until the hon. Member for Middlesbrough made his speech. I do not know whether this policy has been examined by the Government, but it does seem to meet all the objects they are trying to achieve by this ridiculous amalgamation.
Clearly, then, the first reason given for the merger, the situation caused by the withdrawal of the Tudors, was not really taken any more seriously by the Parliamentary

Secretary than it was by those on this side of the House. If he refers to the statement he made to the House on 15th March he will notice that towards the end of his speech he said:
Proposals for dealing with the deficiency in the combined fleets of the Corporations are still under consideration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 15th March, 1949; Vol. 462, c. 1924.]
In other words, he had not the slighest idea how this would solve the problem created by the Tudors. In my submission, nothing he has said today has got us any further towards a solution. He is apparently pinning his hopes on the ten Boeing Stratocruisers, when they are delivered and the Canadairs, but that still does not make this Bill necessary, because these aircraft are not bought by B.O.A.C. but by the Minister of Supply, and they can be allocated to any Corporation the Minister thinks fit—they can be allocated to the Atlantic Corporation instead of to B.O.A.C., and in any case it does not make the slightest difference because it is all paid for by the Government. I think we can ignore the first reason given by the Parliamentary Secretary.
I now turn to the second reason, the idea that in some way the merger is going to increase the economy and the efficiency of B.O.A.C. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned today such things as booking offices and road transport services. Is that sufficient reason for amalgamating the two Corporations into one great unwieldy bulk? Why cannot we co-ordinate services of that kind without any amalgamation at all, which is a perfectly easy thing to do? It would merely mean combining the services of that sort to serve all three Corporations. The Parliamentary Secretary said in his statment:
The amalgamation will not mean that the smaller Corporation will simply be swallowed up by the larger."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March, 1949; Vol. 462, c. 1923.]
If it does not mean that, then I should like to know what it does mean. Of course it will be swallowed up. How is it possible for B.S.A.A., having completely lost its identity, to have any influence on the larger Corporation? How can it possibly improve the efficiency of the larger Corporation which has swallowed it up? The only way in which the State Corporations have any hope of improving their economy and efficiency is by rivalry. I purposely avoided the


word "competition" because there seems to be a certain amount of argument on that in which I do not propose to become involved. I prefer "rivalry," because although these Corporations may not compete one with the other, they should have a sense of rivalry whatever routes they operate and aircraft they use. Surely that is precisely what the Government are here seeking to avoid. The Government are deliberately destroying the only yardstick we have got of whether the airlines financed by the taxpayers are being run efficiently or inefficiently. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) gave some excellent examples of the way in which we have in the past been able to compare the results of one Corporation with another. If this Bill is passed, these comparisons will no longer be possible, and without these comparisons criticisms in this House by the elected representatives of the taxpayers who fork out the money will be made very much more difficult. I do not want to be too controversial in this matter, but perhaps we may be forgiven for suspecting that that would suit the Government extremely well.
I want now to touch on this vexed question of redundancy. The Parliamentary Secretary emphasised that economies which will be effected as a result of this proposed merger will take the form of expanding business, without engaging further staffs, rather than large scale dismissals. While I welcome that statement from him and think it very important, I find it difficult to believe that the staffs of B.S.A.A. and B.O.A.C. are going to be convinced unless he publicly repudiates the statement he made on 15th March, when he said:
Any staff redundancies resulting from the merger will be shared fairly between the two Corporations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March, 1949; Vol. 462, c. 1924.]
That in itself is excellent. If there must be redundancies let them be shared, but the hon. Gentleman said this afternoon that there would be no redundancies. He cannot have it both ways and, for the sake of the employees in the Corporations, he ought immediately to repudiate the statement he made on 15th March.

Mr. Lindgren: I am only too pleased to help. The Corporations are obliged by their procedure of negotiation with the trade unions to enter discussions with

them prior to changes of policy taking place, in order that they may be informed and able to criticise. As a result of consultation on an agreement to a merger such as this, the trade unions, quite rightly, required that if there was to be any redundancy there should be agreed procedure for it. This is a precautionary measure by the trade unions to protect their members. My statement is equally true. As a result of general development capacity, there will be very little redundancy, but if there should be one, two, three, four, or 20 cases, they will be dealt with by the procedure agreed upon by the trade unions.

Mr. Ward: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I should not think it easy for him suddenly to say, "Of course, there will be no redundancy," when there have been very large scale dismissals in B.O.A.C. over the last few months. I think he must be rather more explicit in his statements, because, on the face of them, they conflict. There may have to be further reductions in the cause of economy but if it is found possible to effect a few more economies by cutting down staff, I want to impress on the House that that process in itself does not make the Corporation any more efficient. One can go on reducing costs of any business ad infinitum, without ever making a profit. It should be the aim of the Corporations to build up the business and to show a profit and not to keep on cutting down without showing a profit at all. The only way to show a profit in this, or any other business, is to attract custom. In this business the only way is by being able to attract fare-paying passengers in very large numbers by operating a slightly better airline than any competitors. This can only be done by studying the methods of other airline operators, improving on them and continually going out for new business and developing new services. A mere policy of contraction, so far from increasing efficiency, in fact tends to decrease it, because it is bound to have an extremely unsettling effect on the staff of the Corporation, who are continually fearful lest they become redundant.
I am not saying there should be no reductions in the staff of B.O.A.C., but if they had built up their staffs gradually as they increased their business instead of immediately building up this great


empire from the outset, none of this difficulty would have arisen. It is perfectly absurd to drag B.S.A.A. into this scheme, for if it were left alone it would be able to conduct its affairs successfully and probably absorb some of the redundant staff of B.O.A.C. This Bill will upset quite unnecessarily a Corporation which had a fine spirit, enthusiasm and plenty of confidence in the future. Today it has no confidence and no future.
The Parliamentary Secretary in his statement today said that B.S.A.A. exhibited certain qualities which must on no account be lost. He went on to say that it had developed a most valuable team spirit and a collective loyalty of its own. By this amalgamation B.O.A.C. may be able to make some use of the experience gained by B.S.A.A., but there will be no team spirit left and no collective loyalty. If this Bill goes through this evening those qualities will be entirely lost. Neither of the two main reasons given by the Parliamentary Secretary for asking us to pass this Measure will in any way stand up to examination. They are not good enough reasons for this major alteration in our air services. This Bill cannot solve the aircraft problem at all. It will tend to reduce rather than increase efficiency, and while some economies may be effected by cutting down the staff of B.O.A.C., this could be done whether the two Corporations were merged or not.
Finally, in introducing this Bill the Government have thrown overboard the main principle on which the whole of the Civil Aviation Act was based. We on this side of the House hate the whole sordid, dreary business of nationalisation, but while we have to have State airlines—and we hope and pray we shall not have them very much longer—we realise that we have to have precisely the qualities which the Lord President laid down on the Second Reading of the Civil Aviation Bill, and we cannot have those qualities with less than three Corporations. For these reasons we ask the House this evening to throw out this miserable little Bill.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Lindgren: With one exception—and I will deal with it separately—we can claim that the Debate today has been

useful. The exception is the reference made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) to Lord Douglas. Why hon. Gentlemen opposite feel so bitter because a high-ranking officer or a man eminent in business or commerce joins the Socialist Party I do not know. The Conservative Party have not an exclusive right to every eminent person associated with business or the Services. The hon. Gentleman made a generous reference to Sir Harold Hartley and we join with him on that, as we do when he speaks, as he did, of Sir Miles Thomas. He has also made generous references to Mr. Gerald d'Erlanger and others. All those persons are not associated with the Socialist Party, and why should he get bitter over some person like Lord Douglas? It does not matter if an ordinary working-class lad like myself becomes associated with the Labour Party, but if a high-ranking officer does, it, digs deeply into Tory hearts. The only national party in this House is the party which sits on the Government Benches because it is representative of every trade, profession and calling, except the idle rich, and they are represented on the other side of the House.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Hurry up with the Debate.

Mr. Lindgren: I resent and dissociate myself and my hon. Friend from the remarks made against persons like Lord Douglas. In the few months that he has been with us he has done a job creditably and in keeping with his great record with the Royal Air Force.
I should like now to deal with the Debate and the points made to the extent that time permits. First, there is the reference to the amalgamation of B.E.A. with B.O.A.C. I repeat the statement which I made today that there is no intention of amalgamating those two Corporations for the obvious reason that the type of operation of each is entirely different from the other. The former uses twin-engined aircraft and operates on internal and Continental routes. The whole operations and traffic of the two Corporations are entirely different. It is obviously a better method of organisation to have the two Corporations. I am immediately challenged, and quite rightly, about the statement which I made in this House in reply to a Question


in 1948, when I said that there was no intention of amalgamating B.O.A.C. and B.S.A.A.C. That statement was made factually and correctly in accordance with the intentions of His Majstey's Government at that time. What has happened? I hope that no Government Department and no Minister—it will certainly not be my attitude so far as I have any responsibility—will adopt the attitude that the condition of affairs that obtains in the Ministry at the time the Minister takes charge is to obtain for all time.
Looking at the problem of air transport I felt it was open to consideration whether or not B.O.A.C. and B.S.A.A.C. ought to be amalgamated, and I will say why. We have heard about this grand spirit in B.S.A.A.C. My mind was first directed towards considering whether B.O.A.C. and B.S.A.A.C. should be amalgamated because the only representation which has been made to us by any staff of any Corporation was made by the B.S.A.A.C. staff. Their pilots—I am sorry that I do not see my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) here—were nervous about the conditions under which they were asked to operate. They took the correct course and went to their trade union and stated their case, and the General Secretary of B.A.L.P.A. came to me in my capacity as Parliamentary Secretary, because the Minister was away at the time. He said that these representations had been made to him as General Secretary and he thought they should be looked into.
Those representations having been made by a responsible person on behalf of the employees, I took the action which any Parliamentary Secretary should take in such circumstances. I reported the information to the Minister, who said that we would have the conditions looked into. Lord Nathan asked Sir Frederick Bowhill, who is the Chief Aeronautical Adviser to the Ministry of Civil Aviation and Chairman of the Air Safety Board, to conduct investigations into the operational standards of B.S.A.A.C. As a result of that I took more interest than I had previously done in examining the possibility of amalgamation of the two Corporations. There was a change of Minister, and the present Minister found that B.S.A.A. was opposed to the idea and in the circumstances felt that there should not be an amalgamation. Discussions which took place leaked out in

some way and evidently they reached the ears of Members of Parliament, and a Question was put down. The reply that was given was factually correct in the light of the then Government policy.
Later the Tudor aircraft was withdrawn from service. That completely changed the situation. How can an airline operate without any aircraft? Hon. Gentlemen who say that they will oppose this Bill simply have not faced the Question. I am willing to give way to anyone who wishes to intervene on this point. In the light of the withdrawal of the Tudor aircraft and the fact that B.S.A.A.C. had only Yorks and Lancastrians, and were losing traffic, not because of their operational standards but because people, when they have the choice between a York or Lancastrian and a modern aircraft such as the Constellation and others which are available, will certainly not travel by a York or Lancastrian——

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: A number of my colleagues and myself have made it quite plain that there is no reason why Constellations or Canadairs could not have been leased or sold to this Corporation through Government purchase and the Ministry of Supply, as is being done in any event.

Mr. Lindgren: I wonder whether hon. Gentlemen have considered the dollar difficulty. We cannot buy Constellations or Canadairs today because of lack of dollars. So the only alternative remaining is that of taking half the six Constellations of B.O.A.C. and some of the 22 Canadairs that are to be delivered. Do I understand that it is proposed, that we should divide the Constellations that are available, and the Canadairs—they are not yet available—between B.S.A.A.C. and B.O.A.C.?

Mr. Ward: Why not?

Mr. Lindgren: Because it would be wasteful to create two organisations to deal with the same type of aircraft at the same time. Would hon. Gentlemen opposite, having responsibility for an organisation, set up two separate maintenance organisations to deal with similar types of aircraft operating over the same routes? What would the Opposition say if, in fact, we had Constellations being maintained for B.S.A.A. as a separate organisation at London Airport; a


separate organisation for B.O.A.C. Constellations at Filton; a separate organisation for 15 Canadairs for B.O.A.C. at London Airport and a separate organisation for seven Canadairs at Langley?

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is not that a good case for having a fourth Corporation for maintenance?

Mr. Lindgren: Surely that would take away one of the fundamental factors in airline operation. I am surprised at the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey). In the organisation with which he is associated—and with which he has every right to be proud to be associated—would he operate aircraft, with all the responsibility that entails, for the maintenance of which he is not responsible?

Air-Commodore Harvey: It is done in the Royal Air Force under the centralisation scheme throughout the Service.

Mr. Lindgren: I am not responsible for the Royal Air Force—at the moment anyway. I am responsible for civil aviation. So far as the Royal Air Force is concerned, it can answer for its general standards of operation and maintenance. I am certain that hon. Gentlemen will agree that, so far as the Royal Air Force is concerned, its standards of maintenance and operation are for a totally different purpose. If hon. Members opposite are to be taken seriously, more often than not they are telling me that we should not look at the Royal Air Force at all—and particularly anybody who has served in it, especially if he is a Marshal of the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Ward: The Parliamentary Secretary speaks as though this were a permanent difficulty; as though we shall never again be able to supply a third Corporation with any aeroplanes, except by taking them from B.O.A.C. That is absurd. My point is that we should keep in being the organisation and structure of a third Corporation against the day when new British aeroplanes come along.

Mr. Lindgren: And that is in the sweet by-and-by. If hon. Gentlemen opposite would really put as much vim and vigour into attacking the aircraft industry as they

do the airline operators, they might be doing us some good.

Mr. Ward: That is the job of the Parliamentary Secretary; why does he not do it?

Mr. Lindgren: The hon. Member's job is opposition.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Would the Parliamentary Secretary amplify his remark a little? It is a rather extraordinary remark to make at a time when we are getting some technical superiority over our commercial rivals. I am sure the Minister of Supply would be a little surprised at that remark.

Mr. Lindgren: I will justify it, so far as I can. The present difficulty arises because of the failure of the availability of British aircraft. Tudors have gone out. The only aircraft which promises to be in the running are the Hermes. With his hand on his heart—or where his heart ought to be—Sir Handley Page promised that 25 Hermes would be delivered by the end of June this year. We have not yet received the first aircraft.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Who is the next one? Who will the Parliamentary Secretary attack next?

Mr. Lindgren: I am not going to attack anybody. All I am saying is that the maintenance and structure of B.S.A.A. cannot wait until there is availability of aircraft. All we have at the moment are six Constellations in operation on the North Atlantic; 10 Boeings to be delivered this year, 22 Canadairs, and 25 Hermes when we get them. After all, if we had waited until we had the aircraft suitable for B.S.A.A., there would have been no traffic whatever on the route.

Air-Commodore Harvey: I am obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary. But before he leaves the point, I am sure he will agree that large sums of money have been made available to B.O.A.C. to buy the Stratocruiser, a comparatively untried aircraft. Would not it have been better to make the money available to buy more Contellations and give some of them to B.S.A.A.?

Mr. Lindgren: Everyone can be wise after the event.

Air-Commodore Harvey: No—before.

Mr. Lindgren: Let us face the fact. The contract for the purchase was made when the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas) was Parliamentary Secretary back in 1946.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I must say that I do not accept that.

Mr. Lindgren: Let me put it in this way. The contract for the purchase of the Stratocruisers was made by B.O.A.C. with Government sanction in 1946.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Obviously, I must not go into details, but in fact that is not exactly the case. If the attempt is to place any personal responsibility upon me——

Mr. Lindgren: Not at all. I am not trying to place any personal responsibility on anyone. All I say is that prior to my coming to the Ministry in October, 1946, an order had been placed by B.O.A.C., with Government authority, for the purchase of the six Stratocruisers. To break that contract and to switch the purchase to Constellations in 1948 was simply impossible. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not say that two years after a contract has been made with an aircraft manufacturer we should cancel it and ask to be allowed to switch to something totally different. At least, that is not the way in which business should be done.

Air-Commodore Harvey: It is a very difficult contract.

Mr. Lindgren: I am not arguing whether it is or is not a tight contract. The fact is that under present circumstances this is what we must do. If we had waited until aircraft were available for use by B.S.A.A. there would have been no traffic on the routes, because over the whole of the routes the traffic would have been picked up by other operators. That is the simple fact.
Much has been said about the team spirit in B.S.A.A., and the inference is that it is something better than that which exists in B.O.A.C. The team spirit referred to was not altogether what it should be in B.S.A.A. as is evidenced by what I said earlier about the report to B.A.L.P.A. and their approach to me. When John Brackley came into the chief executive position at B.S.A.A., a very fine spirit indeed began to be shown. I agree

that there is a very good spirit indeed now, as the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Ward) said and as I admitted earlier today. But B.S.A.A. have not got a monopoly in that respect. I have experience among all the Corporations. The spirit in B.O.A.C. is just as good as that in B.S.A.A. There is a remarkably fine spirit in B.O.A.C. of pride in their craft, pride in their achievements and in their standard of operations. In no group is that more obvious perhaps than it is among the flying crews. Among them there is a really first-class spirit. I emphasise the point that there is no monopoly of good spirit and determination to do their job properly in B.S.A.A. It is common to both Corporations.
I was asked why it was that we did not create an Atlantic Division and give B.S.A.A. the North Atlantic routes of B.O.A.C. That possibility was considered very seriously indeed. But would it really meet the position which hon. Gentlemen opposite say exists under the amalgamation of B.S.A.A. and B.O.A.C.? In fact, it would be just as much an amalgamation of B.S.A.A. and B.O.A.C. If we created the Atlantic Division, what would happen? A North Atlantic and a South Atlantic Division would be created; but all the operating experience of the North Atlantic is possessed by the pilots of B.O.A.C. I do not belittle the pilots of B.S.A.A. in any way. As was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield, they are men who had a distinguished record in the Royal Air Force during the war. That is true, but the men with the major experience of airline operation, those who are accepted all over the world as the finest pilots, are those of B.O.A.C. on the North Atlantic route, where the aircraft will be the Constellations and Boeings belonging to B.O.A.C. It would be just as if the little brother had joined up with the big fellow if we had the two divisions, and it would be just the same as if there were complete amalgamation of the two Corporations.
Then it is said that we are losing the only yardstick of efficiency now that B.S.A.A. is going out. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not do themselves credit. There is no yardstick of efficiency in testing the operation of a route by the West Coast of Africa down to Buenos Aires as compared with the North Atlantic operation. We just cannot test the two,


because the type of operation, the staging, the type of aircraft and the pay-load and operating conditions are all different. It is simply impossible to test it that way. The only way to test B.O.A.C. on the North Atlantic route is with Pan-American or K.L.M. To suggest that a yardstick of efficiency can be made by contrasting the operation of different aircraft over different routes is quite misleading.

Mr. Ward: If the Parliamentary Secretary does not believe that, perhaps he will have a quiet word with the Lord President of the Council.

Mr. Lindgren: I am not being drawn into what the Lord President says or does. All I am concerned with is doing my job, and I have tried, as long as I have been in it, to understand it and to be able to make out a case on behalf of it.
Equally, in regard to the point made about competition, when the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford spoke about the elimination of competition, he was completely wrong, and I am sure he does not really believe it! The operations of K.L.M., Swissair, Pan-American and B.O.A.C. are all part of an international job of civil aviation, in which we test the efficiency of an organisation by its standard of operation and its costs over the same routes, even though over those same routes they may have different types of aircraft. When I joined the railways, there were 150 different railway companies, and when the Tory Government passed the Railways Act, 1921, they turned 111 railway companies into four. It is true that this Government improved on that by turning those four into one.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Wait until Sunday midnight. The hon. Gentleman had better finish his speech before then.

Mr. Lindgren: Hon. Members rejoice when there are little difficulties with regard to a nationalised industry. [Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen opposite make cracks at me, they must expect something back. In transport organisations, private enterprise itself tended to create a monopoly and a single organisation for the major trunk services. That has been done in shipping, in railways, in road transport and it has been done in air transport as well.
Another vital point with which I wish to deal is the question of the S.R.45, which was raised by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir. P. Macdonald), who apologised to me very nicely for the fact that he had a very important social function to attend tonight and could not be present for my winding-up. But as he and other hon. Members have raised the point, I should like to deal with it now. First of all, the S.R.45 contract continues, and B.O.A.C. accepts the obligations entered into by B.S.A.A. in regard to the S.R.45. Again, I deprecate hon. Members opposite insinuating that B.O.A.C. is anti-flying boat. B.O.A.C. are the only large flying boat operators in the world; they are the only people who have such a great experience of this branch of aviation, and, in fact, that is a further reason for this Bill being introduced. B.S.A.A. could not have operated the S.R.45 without the help of B.O.A.C.'s flying boat experience, crews and maintenance organisation and, in fact, would have had to take over the B.O.A.C. base, and there would have had to be conversion training of pilots and maintenance staff transferred from B.O.A.C.
Medium-class flying boat operation is not economic from the point of view of the flying boat operator because, over a large part of the world, he has to bear the cost of a marine base in addition to that of a land base, and operate two types of aircraft. He has to bear, over and above the cost of the land plane, something which other operators do not bear. If one could only get more people to operate flying boats there would be a reduction in costs, but I believe that there is a much greater future for the large flying boat than there is for the large land plane. I have said in public that the operation of the flying boat is quite naturally a British activity and one in which we hope to carry on the old British tradition of maritime operations, which was carried on so well by the Merchant Navy. But to suggest that B.O.A.C. is anti-flying boat is completely wrong. I invite hon. Members opposite to go to Hythe and meet the flying boat crews of B.O.A.C. who are most enthusiastic about their type of aircraft.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the Parliamentary Secretary saying that he did not realise that there were sections of B.O.A.C. who were anti-flying boat?

Mr. Lindgren: In the whole of the air transport industry there are, of course, groups of people who are pro-flying boat and groups who are anti-flying boat. The controversy of land plane versus flying boat has been going on for ages. It has gone on in the Royal Air Force, in the Navy, and everywhere that flying men meet. In fact, the flying people are like doctors, dentists and lawyers—the more expert they are, the more they agree to differ; and flying men are no different.
I will now say a word about the question of redundancy. So far as we can see at the moment, there will be little redundancy; in fact, practically none. In so far as there is any redundancy or might be any, it will be dealt with on an agreed procedure. The National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport and the men themselves at the particular bases will deal with any redundancies that arise. The men themselves will decide who are the persons to go, in the light of the general arrangements. It is equally true that the fact that the men of B.S.A.A. may be at some depôts which are not directly concerned with Canadair maintenance, will not prejudice them in any shape or form. They are part of the organisation and they will be treated as such.
Reference was made to the fact that persons appeared to be assuming that this Bill had already become law and they had moved from the administration of B.S.A.A. into the buildings of B.A.O.C. That is not true. What has happened is that the chairman of B.S.A.A. has been made a director of B.O.A.C., and Mr. Whitney Straight, Chief Executive of B.O.A.C., has been made a director of

B.S.A.A. in order that there shall be closer co-ordination while general development of the merger takes place. All that has happened is that Mr. Booth, who will be one of the deputy-chairmen when this Bill becomes law, has moved across to B.O.A.C. in order to deal with his function as a director of B.O.A.C.

Air-Commodore Harvey: What about B.S.A.A.?

Mr. Lindgren: Surely that ought to be the biggest guarantee to the B.S.A.A. staff that they are going to be treated fairly. The chairman of their organisation is to be made one of the deputy-chairmen of the other organisation, and one of his main functions is to see that his staffs are fairly dealt with.
I was going to deal with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper), but as he is not here I think I may be forgiven if I do not deal with it. The last point with which I shall deal is the point which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) concerning what he alleged was the lack of information among the panels at Langley. I give this guarantee. If there is any difficulty it will be dealt with immediately, because B.O.A.C. and B.S.A.A. are most anxious that the consultative machinery shall work effectively.
I ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading to enable us to develop civil aviation.

Question put, "That 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 224: Noes, 98.

Division No. 196.]
AYES
[9.5 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Bramall, E. A.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)


Albu, A. H.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Deer, G.


Alpass, J. H.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Delargy, H. J.


Attewell, H. C.
Burden, T. W.
Diamond, J.


Awbery, S. S.
Burke, W. A.
Dobbie, W.


Ayles, W. H.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Dodds, N. N.


Bacon, Miss A.
Callaghan, James
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)


Balfour, A.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Champion, A. J.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)


Barstow, P. G.
Cobb, F. A.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)


Barton, C.
Cocks, F. S.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)


Battley, J. R.
Collick, P.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Collindridge, F.
Evans, John (Ogmore)


Benson, G.
Collins, V. J.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)


Beswick, F.
Colman, Miss G. M.
Ewart, R.


Bing, G. H. C.
Cook, T. F.
Farthing, W. J.


Blackburn, A. R.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Fernyhough, E.


Blenkinsop, A.
Corlett, Dr. J.
Freeman, J. (Watford)


Blyton, W. R.
Cove, W. G.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Daggar, G.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Daines, P.
Gibson, C. W.




Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Skinnard, P. W.


Grey, C. F.
Mayhew, C. P.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Grierson, E.
Mellish, R. J.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Griffiths, D. (Rother valley)
Messer, F.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Sorensen, R. W.


Guy, W. H.
Mitchison, G. R.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hale, Leslie
Monslow, W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Moody, A. S.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Morley, R.
Stross, Dr. B.


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Stubbs, A. E.


Hardy, E. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Lewisham E.)
Sylvester, G. O.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mort, D. L.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Haworth, J.
Moyle, A.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Nally, W.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Hobson, C. R.
Naylor, T. E.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Holman, P.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Thurtle, Ernest


Horabin, T. L.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Timmons, J.


Houghton, A. L. N. D.
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Titterington, M. F.


Hubbard, T.
Oldfield, W. H.
Tolley, L.


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Oliver, G. H.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Orbach, M.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Paget, R. T.
Usborne, Henry


Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Vernon, Major W. F.


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Viant, S. P.


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Pargiter, G. A.
Walker, G. H.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Parkin, B. T.
Warbey, W. N.


Jay, D. P. T.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


John, W.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Weitzman, D.


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Pearson, A.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Peart, T. F.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
West, D. G.


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Popplewell, E.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Keenan, W.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


King, E. M.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Wigg, George


Kinley, J.
Price, M. Philips
Wilkes, L.


Lang, G.
Proctor, W. T.
Wilkins, W. A.


Lavers, S.
Pryde, D. J.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Pursey, Comdr. H.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Leslie, J. R.
Randall, H. E.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Ranger, J.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Lindgren, G. S.
Raid, T. (Swindon)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Logan, D. G.
Rhodes, H.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Lyne, A. W.
Richards, R.
Willis, E.


McAdam, W.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Wills Mrs. E. A.


McEntee, V. La T.
Robinson, K. (St. Pancras)
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.


McGhee, H. G.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Mack, J. D.
Royle, C.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Sargood, R.
Yates, V. F.


Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Segal, Dr. S.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


McLeavy, F.
Sharp, Granville



Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Shurmer, P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mainwaring, W. H.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Mr. Snow and Mr. George Wallace.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Simmons, C. J.





NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.


Baldwin, A. E.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Gage, C.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.


Birch, Nigel
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)


Bowen, R.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Bower, N.
Gammans, L. D.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Granville, E. (Eye)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Gridley, Sir A.
Marples, A. E.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Grimston, R. V.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.


Butcher, H. W.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Carson, E.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Odey, G. W.


Channon, H.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Hollis, M. C.
Osborne, C.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hope, Lord J.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hund, A.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Pickthorn, K.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig, O.


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Jennings, R.
Raikes, H. V.


Drewe, C.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Erroll, F. J.
Lipson, D. L.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Ropner, Col. L.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Low, A. R. W.
Scott, Lord W.


Fox, Sir G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.







Snadden, W. M.
Turton, R. H.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Spence, H. R.
Wadsworth, G.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Strauss, Henry (English Universities)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.
York, C.


Teeling, William
Ward, Hon. G. R.



Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset. E.)
Mr. Studholme and


Touche, G. C.
Williams, C. (Torquay)
Mr. Wingfield Digby.


Question put, and agreed to.

AIRWAYS CORPORATIONS [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84.—[King's Recommendation signified.]

[MAJOR MILNER in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the merger of the British South American Airways Corporation with the British Overseas Airways Corporation; to authorise the appointment of an additional deputy chairman of the British Overseas Airways Corporation; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) any increase in the amounts chargeable on the Consolidated Fund under section sixteen of the British Overseas Airways Act, 1939, which may be attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session extending the borrowing powers of the British Overseas Airways Corporation;
(b) any increase in the amounts payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under section twelve of the Civil Aviation Act, 1946, which may be attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session authorising the appointment of an additional deputy chairman of the British Overseas Airways Corporation;
(c) any increase attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session in the amounts payable into the Exchequer under section eighteen of the said Act of 1946."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

9.14 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: I feel sure that the Financial Secretary, after the warnings we have had from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the position of the country, will not wish that a Financial Resolution of this kind should go through Committee without, at any rate, having a chance of explaining, as clearly as he possibly can, what sums may fall to be paid by the Treasury and, of course, the taxpayers under this Resolution. By paragraph (b) of this Financial Resolution a certain amount of money has to be found for the deputy chairman. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will be able to tell me approximately what that

official's salary will be, and also what allowance is likely to be made to him for the cost he may incur in the performance of his duty. I should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that there were some very strong speeches at a place called Blackpool the other day by working men, most of whom, of course, support the Conservative Party these days, on the subject of high salaries. Naturally, knowing that there is in the country today that feeling about salaries it would be grossly improper on the part of the Committee were it to pass blindly a Financial Resolution without even asking what the salary is to be in this case. I hold the view that if we are to get a good man we must pay him a good salary, and I shall not depart from that point of view. But there are hon. Members opposite, many of whom I am no doubt looking at at the present moment, who in their time have proclaimed vividly that £1,000 a year was too much for anyone.
My second question is on paragraph (a), which concerns any increase in the amounts chargeable, and ends by referring to the borrowing powers of the British Overseas Airways Corporation. I should like some idea of the limits which there are likely to be on borrowing, because here again we are up against the Chancellor's problem of getting enough money, and I feel it my duty to try to protect him against any demand from the Minister of Civil Aviation which may upset his Budget balance—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am indeed glad to hear my remarks received with such appreciation by Members of the Government back benches. I only hope that as it is now fairly late they will not take up a lot of time by making speeches from a sitting position, which seem to be the only speeches which usually come from them at this time of the evening.
Paragraph (b) increases the amounts payable out of moneys provided by Parliament authorising the appointment of the additional deputy chairman. I do not know that I am right, but I imagine that means the people who are on his staff and assisting him in various ways.


There is a third sum in connection with which I am sure the Financial Secretary, following the new position taken up by his leader the Chancellor—to whom he is so loyal although I would not say subservient after the things he has done in the last two or three days—will undoubtedly do his best to let the country know what costs will be incurred.
Paragraph (c) is almost the most interesting part of this Financial Resolution, because as I understand it this lays down that any profit that is made will be paid to the Exchequer. I do not anticipate very large profits, but quite obviously some estimate must have been made of the likelihood of making a profit. Perhaps we may be given an idea what it is estimated to be. The Chancellor himself, if he had the time among his numerous foreign visits, would have looked into this, as Chancellors of old would have done, and would have been hunting up any possible chance of a profit.
I have made those four points very shortly, because I know that there are other things the House wishes to do, and as I am somewhat exhausted after having had to work so much in the last two days. Nevertheless, I did feel that we ought to be given those elementary figures. Looking at the strong array on the Treasury Bench, and at the obviously worn-out appearance of the Home Secretary—who now seems to be in conversation with his colleagues as to who shall answer these questions—I am sure that some help will be given, not to me, for I do not ask for myself, but to the whole body of taxpayers, who are naturally interested to know where we stand.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. Lindgren: This Bill does not provide for any additional finance. All this Resolution does is to bring together the powers of the Civil Aviation Act, 1946, as applied to B.S.A.A. and B.O.A.C., in order to apply them to the new Corporation. The salary of the deputy-chairman does not concern this Resolution at all. He is an employee of the board; he receives his salary from the Corporation, and is not affected in any way by this Resolution. This Resolution brings together the borrowing powers of B.S.A.A. and B.O.A.C., which become £60 million. Paragraph (c) applies Section

18 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1946. It lays down that any profits made by B.S.A.A. between now and the time when they go out of existence shall be included in the moneys of B.O.A.C. and shall be payable to the Exchequer.

Mr. C. Williams: How much?

Mr. Lindgren: The whole of the profits. The Civil Aviation Act, 1946, lays down that the difference between the revenue and the cost of operating shall be made up by subsidy. Any profit being taken back by the Treasury, up to the extent of previously made subsidies, but that is likely to be a long time.

Mr. Williams: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been trying to reduce the expenditure of Departments, and the Parliamentary Secretary has not given a single figure or attempted to answer one of the questions I have put to him on this matter. Anyone who had been in the House for a short time could have given an answer. This Resolution does not begin to do what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is asking Departments to do. I regret that the Chancellor's wishes have so soon been thrown over by a Department which is making such a hopeless muddle of things as the Department of the Parliamentary Secretary.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow

PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

9.23 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is a technical one. It is not a very readable one, but it is one of great importance in the industrial development of the country. Its purpose is to improve the existing law to meet modern requirements, though it does not change radically the principles of our patent system. The first known patent granted by the Crown for a new invention was dated April, 1449, a process for making stained glass windows, and so this Bill in a sense marks


the quincentenary of that event. The foundations of the patent system, however, were laid over 300 years ago by the Statute of Monopolies, 1624, which established the fundamental principle that patents should not be granted in respect of manufactures already used in this country but only in respect of new manufactures and then only if they were not
mischievous to the State or generally inconvenient
and only for a limited period of years. In fact, the existing Patents Acts still define "invention" by reference to the provisions in the Statute of Monopolies, 1624, and, subject to a small enlargement, the Bill proposes to retain this definition.
The system of granting patents as we know it today came into being in 1883 when the Patent Office was established for the purpose of granting patents for inventions, and registering trade marks and industrial designs. In 1907 the law of patents and designs was generally revised and consolidated by the Act of that year. Since then the Act has been amended on eight occasions, but none of the changes have been fundamental in character.
There have been a number of changes since 1907, and as it was thought desirable to examine whether the law as it now stands, after that amendment is adequate to meet modern conditions, the Board of Trade decided in 1944 to set up a Committee to make a comprehensive review of patents and designs law and procedure. The Chairman of the Committee was Mr. (now shortly to become Sir) Kenneth R. Swan, K.C. I should like on behalf of His Majesty's Government to express our warmest thanks to the chairman and other members of the Committee for their arduous labours which extended over more than three years. In all, the Committee presented three Reports containing a large number of recommendations which, with one exception, were unanimous. The First Interim Report of the Committee was published in 1945 and made recommendations for granting extensions of the normal term of patents which could not be worked owing to war conditions. Effect was given to these recommendations by Section 1 of the Patents and Designs Act of 1946. The Second Interim and Final Reports of the Committee were published in 1946 and 1947 and the present Bill is based substantially

upon the recommendations made in those Reports. It does, however, contain a number of other proposals.
As I have said the basic principle of our system of patent law will remain unaltered, under the present Bill. Perhaps it would be of assistance to the House if I quoted what the Swan Committee said in paragraphs 9 and 11 of their Second Interim Report.
The theory upon which the patent system is based is that the opportunity of acquiring exclusive rights in an invention stimulates technical progress, mainly in four ways: first, that it encourages research and invention; second, that it induces an inventor to disclose his discoveries, instead of keeping them as a trade secret; third, that it offers a reward for the expense of developing inventions to the stage at which they are commercially practicable; and fourth, that it provides an inducement to invest capital in new lines of production which might not appear profitable if many competing producers embarked on them simultaneously. The history of industrial development seems on the whole to have justified this theory.
The Committee goes on to say:
… We are in favour of the retention of the present system in this country, and this view is supported by witnesses who have appeared before us, representing both inventors and the commercial users of inventions. Some witnesses also expressed concern at the harm that would be caused to our foreign trade if, by any radical change in our patent system, we rendered ourselves ineligible for continued membership of the International Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property.
His Majesty's Government concur in the view of the Committee, and the Bill does not, therefore, propose any fundamental change in the system.
The Bill is rather lengthy, containing as it does 52 Clauses and three Schedules. I am sure it would be wearisome to the House were I to embark on a detailed explanation of the very large number of changes of a purely technical character made in the existing law. I propose, therefore, only to give a brief explanation of the more important provisions contained in the Clauses of the Bill. These Clauses, in effect, do six things. First, there are changes in the procedure in connection with applications for patents and in the system of dating patents; secondly, the Bill improves and widens the existing provisions about the abuse of patent rights or insufficient use of inventions; thirdly, it extends the provisions about the use of inventions and designs for the services of the Crown, and


about secrecy in connection with inventions related to matters of defence; fourthly, it provides means to cheapen and to speed up legal proceedings on patents; fifthly, it gives additional rights to the holders of exclusive licences under patents; and, finally, there are a series of changes in the procedure on the registration of designs.
I will deal first with alterations in the procedure for patent applications and in the system of dating patents. The operational Clauses here make a change which will be of considerable benefit to persons who acquire the rights in an invention from the inventor. Under this Bill it will be possible for such persons to apply for a patent in their own names, and the inventor need not be a party to the application, although his name must be disclosed in the application. It may happen that an inventor, having sold his invention to another person, loses interest in the application, or for some other reason is not available to sign the documents. Under Clauses 3 and 4, important changes are made in the dating of patents, and a system of priority dates is set up.
This alteration in procedure will bring the Patent Office practice substantially into line with that of most of the foreign countries of the International Union. It will also result in some temporary loss of revenue, since the dates of payment of renewal fees for keeping patents in force, which may at present be calculated from the date of the provisional specification or in Convention cases the date of the foreign application, will in future be calculated from the date of filing the complete specification which may be up to a year later. But this again will remove a sense of grievance which has been expressed in the past by other countries, parties to the Convention, and will apply to the nationals of such countries the same date for calculation as those countries already apply to British nationals. These changes will have a number of advantages which I hope will encourage better and fuller disclosure of inventions and of the best way of working those inventions, and thus be to the ultimate benefit of the public in general.
Clauses 16 to 24 of the Bill make provision for the grant of relief where the monopoly rights under a patent are being abused or insufficient use is being made

by the patentee or by the licensees of the patented invention. Clause 16 retains the existing grounds upon which application may be made to the Comptroller for the grant of a compulsory licence, but includes additional grounds to meet cases where there are demands for the patented article which remain undeveloped or unfulfilled: and in respect of which the patentee refuses to grant licences on reasonable terms to persons who are both able and willing to meet such further demands. For example, the patentee may meet the home demand adequately but neglect opportunities for export to foreign markets; or a subsequent inventor may have made an important advance on a patented invention but be prevented from working his invention because he cannot do so without infringing the existing patent, and cannot obtain a licence on reasonable terms for doing this.
These provisions are supplemented by the additional powers to be given to Government Departments under Clause 19. A Government Department can apply for a licence under Clause 16 where it proposes to exploit the patented invention, for instance in a Government factory. But there may be cases where an invention is not being exploited and the Department is of opinion that such exploitation is in the national interest, but where no manufacturer is able or willing to apply for a licence under Clause 16 and the Department itself is unable to manufacture. So under Clause 19 the Department may apply, on any of the grounds mentioned in Clause 16, either for the grant of a licence to a specified manufacturer, or for the indorsement of the patent "Licences of Right," in which case any manufacturer will be entitled as of right to a licence to use the patent on terms which, failing agreement between the parties, will be settled by the Comptroller.
Further, where a report of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission as laid before Parliament under the Monopolies Act indicates that restrictive conditions or practices exist in respect of the granting of licences under a patent, and where the House of Commons passes a Resolution that such restrictive conditions or practices are operating or may be expected to operate against the public interest, the Board of Trade, or other competent authority, may apply to the Comptroller for cancellation or modification


of the restrictive conditions, or for indorsement of the patent "Licences of Right."
The right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) will remember that when we passed the Monopolies Bill a year ago we took that view, and I think he endorsed the view, that monopolistic practices in relation to patents were best dealt with, not under that Measure, but as the subject for fresh legislation. I hope he will agree that in this present Bill we have given effect to what both of us wanted. These changes will give increased assurance that patent rights are not abused and that patented inventions are being fully used.
Then there are the provisions of Clauses 27 to 29 relating to the use of patented inventions for the services of the Crown. For the most part they continue the provisions of Section 29 of the existing Act. As the House knows, it is a condition of the grant of the patent that the patentee shall supply the Crown with the patented article on reasonable terms. So, where a Government Department orders a patented article from the patentee himself, his remuneration is covered by the price paid for the articles, and the Bill provides that the terms of any agreement between the patentee and any other person which might prevent or restrict such a supply are to be set aside. But where a Government Department itself makes the patented article, or authorises persons other than the patentee to make it, then, according to the existing law and the proposals in the Bill, any agreement entered into by the patentee with other persons is inoperative in so far as this authorised use of the invention is concerned and the patentee is paid a sum for the use of the patented invention to be settled by agreement, or, failing agreement, to be settled by the court.
Clause 31, which follows up this, makes permanent provision for ensuring secrecy concerning inventions of military significance. The proposed procedure follows the general lines of the procedure which has been in force since 1939 under the Defence Regulations and it replaces the somewhat rigid procedure of Section 30 of the existing Acts. It provides that, where an invention is kept secret, payment shall be made to the inventor or to anyone assigned by him to receive payment if it is used by the Crown and, if

it is not so used, there is provision for ex gratia payment in certain cases of hardship.
One of the most frequent complaints arising out of the establishment and working of patent rights is the high cost and complexity of patent actions. The Swan Committee, in their Second Interim Report, gave a great deal of attention to this, and they made a number of recommendations, which are now embodied in the Bill, for facilitating, cheapening and improving the procedure for such actions. For instance, Clause 33 provides for the appointment of scientific advisers to assist the court in patent actions. They would have an expert knowledge of the art involved, and their function would be to assist the court not in the trial of matters in issue but in elucidating the technical aspects of the case. Then again, Clause 36 (2) will enable a manufacturer who is proposing to make a new article but is uncertain whether such manufacture would infringe patent rights to apply to the court for a declaration that any action he is taking in respect of the making, using or selling an article will not constitute an infringement of the patent, and so enable him to avoid the trouble and expense of a speculative action for revocation of the patent, or possibly for infringement proceedings at a later date.
Clause 37 enables a dispute between a patentee or an exclusive licensee and another person as to whether the patent has been infringed to be submitted, if the parties agree, to the Comptroller for determination, instead of as at present to the court. Again, in Clause 38 provision is made under which disputes between employers and their employees as to the ownership of inventions made by the employee can be referred to the Comptroller by either party, not necessarily by agreement between the parties, instead of going to the court, since it often happens that an employee is unable to face the cost of a court action. Clause 47 proposes that in future all appeals from the decision of the Comptroller shall go to the Patents Appeal Tribunal. This Tribunal is a Judge of the High Court and proceedings before it are much cheaper than those in the court.
Clause 48 contemplates the appointment of an additional puisne Judge. The Bill does not expressly state the qualifications


necessary for this appointment, as was recommended by the Swan Committee, and it is left to the Lord Chancellor to make a suitable appointment.
A number of provisions are included in the Bill for the benefit of the exclusive licensee apart from those already mentioned. Thus under Clause 9(2) he may apply for an extension of the term of the patent on the ground of war loss, and under Clause 35 he may institute proceedings for infringement of the patent, rights which hitherto could only be exercised by the patentee. Finally, there are the Clauses relating to registered designs. At present designs are registered in one or more of 15 classes, defined by rules. The copyright in a registered design covers the application of the design to every article in the class or classes in which it is registered. This classification we now consider somewhat out of date, and instead of attempting to set up a new classification, we thought it preferable to provide in Clause 41 that in future designs shall be registered in respect of articles or sets of articles.
I hope that this Bill, giving effect to the main recommendations of the Swan Committee, while maintaining the basic principle of our Patent Law intact, will commend itself to the House as a reasonable reform. But, as the House will have observed, the law as regards both patents and designs will still be spread over a series of separate enactments, and possibly it will be of assistance to the House to know that I hope, when the present Bill has become law, as I trust it will, to introduce Bills for the purpose of consolidating the law of patents and designs in separate Acts. A White Paper showing the shape of the proposed consolidating legislation is already in the hands of hon. Members. I hope that this House will endorse the general welcome which I think I can say has been given to this Bill. It will, I hope, improve the protection of the rights of inventors in their inventions. On the other hand, the extended provisions dealing with the abuse or insufficient use of patents may be expected to encourage a fuller exploitation of inventions already in use, and the working of inventions in the national interest, which had not so far been developed.
In moving the Second Reading, I confidently commend the Bill to the House as one which will bring our patent system more into line with modern requirements and will enable the process of invention, which has done so much for our industrial development, to proceed unchecked, and to the greater benefit of the community.

9.44 p.m.

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: On behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends and myself I welcome this Bill which the President of the Board of Trade has so lucidly placed before the House. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is not a Bill that so pulsates with human interest that it draws hordes of hon. Members to the Chamber on a day after an all-night sitting. But nevertheless it is a Bill of great importance, and one from which several facets of our national life will benefit.
I should like first of all to join in the tribute which the right hon. Gentleman has paid to the Swan Committee and the work which they have done. April, 1944, seems a long time ago now, and yet we know that from that time they have worked hard. They paid great attention to the diversity of views placed before them, and they have issued two valuable interim reports before the final report which is the substratum of this Bill. I think there is another tribute which should be paid in regard to this Bill. As you, Mr. Speaker, are aware, it is introduced from another place, and limiting myself most severely within the rules of Order I repeat what the Government spokesman there said, that it left another place something better than it was when it was introduced. That was the result of some 40 Amendments which were made to the Bill, mostly at the instance of my noble Friend Lord Simon; but let me say at once also due to the spirit of co-operation which the Government showed in accepting the Amendments and discussing them before they were introduced into the Bill.
I mentioned that point not only for its importance, but because the course which I have just described has greatly lightened out labours tonight and in the future stages of the Bill. The approach which was then taken, and which I suggest should be the approach


of this House to this Bill, was, first, that no one denies or controverts that the inventor of a patent invention should be recognised as having special rights, but at the same time consideration should be given to the fact that the general interests of the country are properly served and supplied on reasonable terms in this regard.
It is a striking fact that a Socialist Government in their fourth year of office have reaffirmed the basic principle of patent law and have rejected the theory that patents are a capitalist ramp. This is an important matter and I submit that it will have a useful and invigorating effect on individual initiative and enterprise in this country. I specially call attention to the fact that it used to be suggested quite frequently—now it is seldom, if ever, suggested by anyone except the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health—that a number of patents are suppressed for the benefit of various industrial interests. It is important, as we are trying to get a new approach from the party opposite, an approach which will be shared by the country as a whole, to this important matter of invention and its encouragement, that one should drive the last nail into the coffin of that canard by recalling what the Swan Committee, to whom such universal tributes have been paid, said in that regard. In paragraph 22 of their Second Interim Report, the Committee drew attention to the fact in these words:
Allegations have frequently been made that, in spite of these provisions of the law, patents are used in a restrictive sense, or in various ways contrary to the public interest. In particular:
(1) the owner of patent rights may fail to make any use at all of the patented invention, though it has potential uses and though others would be willing to develop and exploit it.
The Committee examined that point most carefully, and it was very right that they should because it is an allegation which has had great publicity. They came to this conclusion, in paragraph 24:
It is impossible for us, with the means of investigation at our disposal, to attempt an exact estimate of the prevalence or importance of these various types of restrictive uses of patents.
They dealt with another six as well as the one I have mentioned—
Popular attention has been mainly concentrated on the first type—the deliberate

suppression of inventions. Rumours of this practice are frequent but, in spite of our endeavours to obtain it, no satisfactory evidence of particular examples has been forthcoming. Several persons who had made public statements about the suppression of inventions were invited to give evidence before us but did not accept the invitation. We have formed the opinion that this type of restriction has been much exaggerated. It is true that, for various reasons, evidence on this matter is not easy to obtain, and cases may have occurred which have not been brought to light. But we think it possible that unfounded allegations in regard to deliberate suppression of inventions may arise from the unfulfilled expectations of an over-sanguine inventor, or from failure to realise that the non-adoption of an invention may be due to practical difficulties in manufacture or application, or perhaps to lack of enterprise, or pre-occupation with other matters.
I think it is only right that the result of an obviously careful examination and attempt to get evidence by this very responsible Committee should be made clear at the present time.

Mr. Cobb: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way? They do not deny that certain patents are used to buttress certain monopoly and cartel arrangements.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That, of course, is a different matter, and the hon. Gentleman must realise that the point with which I am dealing is a very well-known allegation that patents are suppressed. I think it is of great importance, and I want to develop this point, and, if possible, take the whole House with me, because it is important that, when allegations like this are made, we cannot do better than have them examined by an impartial Committee, and, when they come to that conclusion, that point goes. With regard to the point he has raised, the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Cobb) knows that it is a point which we have fully discussed on the Monopolies Bill, and I do not want to re-cover the ground. It is also dealt with in the Report, and, again, there are difficulties in coming to an exact conclusion or estimating the extent, but I do want to nail that particular canard which I have mentioned.

Mr. H. Wilson: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will excuse me, it is important that this matter should be considered by the House and the right hon. and learned Gentleman has in fact said that he wants to carry the whole House with him. I think he will agree that, in order to put this very difficult


question of patents in the fairest way, it would be right that he should quote paragraph 26 as well as the paragraph he quoted. Neither can be conclusive, because of the difficulties about evidence, but I do not think a speech should go out from this House as representing only one part of the findings of the Committee, and I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will give the House the benefit of paragraph 26 as well.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Paragraph 26 deals with a special point, which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is itself in the history of the patent law, and I will deal with that in one moment. It is correct, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that in dealing with the suppression of production by patents in the sense which I have mentioned, and when dealing with a special point, they say:
Cases of the prohibition or discouragement of production in this country of the patented commodities in order to preserve the British market for articles made abroad have been brought to our notice.
and then they quote one or two examples of that having taken place. But I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that particular point—I will deal with the history of it in a moment—does not affect the general conclusion which they state on the general allegation in paragraph 24 which I have read.

Mr. Blackburn: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow me? The substance of the findings was not that this practice does not exist, but that its prevalence has been greatly exaggerated.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) obviously has not read the Report and has not been listening carefully to what I am saying.

Mr. Blackburn: I am quoting from the House of Lords.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: If the hon. Gentleman will not object to my giving him a little advice, it is important, on a matter like this, dealing with allegations made about other people, to get to the original source. I quoted the whole paragraph. I welcomed the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman when he asked me to make an addition, but I entirely disagree

with the hon. Member for King's Norton that he has correctly summarised the paragraph. It says that they appealed for evidence, that they could not get it, and that they have come to the conclusion that it has been grossly exaggerated for the reasons I have stated. I do not for one moment accept the gloss on the paragraph which the hon. Gentleman suggested.
As I have said, I want to take the whole House with me on this point, and to ask hon. Members to remember what having patents in existence really means. The ownership of patents enables research to be undertaken much more easily and effectively because information can then be freely shared since secrecy is not relied upon. Let me take an example which was sent to me by a member of the Patent Bar the other day. He said that a company which he mentioned had just held what he termed a three-day conversazione. If I might digress for a moment, I would like to say that I was very interested to learn that scientists used the term "conversazione." I pursued the point, and was informed, as hon. Members may be surprised to know, that the reason was that scientists disliked the connotation of the word "symposium" as giving a quite false idea of the main activity of their gathering. I am sure that no one in this House would suspect that drinking was the main activity of that gathering, but, since the word had that connotation, they preferred "conversazione." But the interesting point is that that gathering lasted for three days, and that during that time they laid open all their patent processes to industrialists, scientists and representatives of Government Departments. It was possible to do that because, as I say, with patented processes there is no trouble about secrecy, and no need to maintain it.
The other point I would like the hon. Gentleman to appreciate is this—and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade impliedly made it very clear—that what is now in Clause 16 of the Bill with regard to the matter of dealing with abuses of monopoly right is not modern. When one considers the history, as the right hon. Gentleman said, one finds that as early as 1883, now 66 years ago, there was a provision in the Act of that time that if by reason of the refusal of the patentee to grant licences on reasonable terms, and if the patent was


not being worked in the United Kingdom for the reasonable requirements of the public and the invention could be supplied, steps could be taken against the patentee. These steps were widened in 1907, which, after all, is 42 years ago, and they were left substantially the same, although the drafting of their provisions was improved, by the Acts of 1919 and 1932.
If one takes Clause 16 of this Bill, I think everyone would agree that this was a fair summary of the detailed provisions as to what are the evils for which action may be taken. Four out of the six provisions go back in identical effect, though in slightly different terms, to the Act of 1907, one goes back to 1919, and the other goes back to 1932. The only reason that I have elaborated this point at all is because of the intervention of the hon. Member for King's Norton, to which I hope he will not think I object in any way, since I know he would only have made it because he was interested in the point, and I wanted to deal with that point and meet it. I think he will appreciate that if in the twentieth century there had been any substance in the suggestion of the suppression of patents, there has been the power for such attempts at suppression to be resisted in practically all the important cases for 40 years. If one takes one of the best known cases, the inextinguishable match, had there been anything in the suggestion, there would have been plenty of time for anyone to test whether the match could be put out since 1907. I believe that it is a good thing that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade and the Government have maintained the position as it exists and have not accepted the suggestions which were made to the Swann Committee but which were rejected by that Committee, that every patent should be made subject to a licence of right.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Monopolies Commission. I again commend the approach that has been made, because after the Monopolies Commission has reported or this House has passed the resolution, then the Government still have to make application to the Comptroller before action can be taken. I commend in this instance, as in every instance, that when a person has a complaint to make he should,

whenever possible, allow an independent tribunal to consider and adjudicate on that complaint. That is done in this instance, and I welcome it.
I have dwelt rather more lengthily than I intended with the main point which I desired to make, and therefore in compensation I shall be very short with my remaining points. With regard to the position of the services of the Crown, I would only say to the right hon. Gentleman that some of my hon. Friends will probably want further information on the position of the patentee-contractor and the payments made, but I shall not go into it in detail. I appreciate the complexity of the point, and we shall have other opportunities of discussing it if necessary. I am very glad to see the Secretary of State for Scotland on the Government Front Bench, because his knowledge of patent law is one of the facts with which we are all very familiar in this House, and he will be able to deal with the Scottish complexities with his usual ability and distinction.
The point I want to make is one about which there is a certain amount of feeling in Scotland; I do not ask for an immediate reply, but I do invite consideration on the point. The procedure under the Bill is by means of the Comptroller to the tribunal, and in certain cases from the tribunal to the English Court of Appeal. In one limited class of cases—that is, where there are matters between employers and workmen—if the matter arises in Scotland it can go to the Court of Session instead of the court or the tribunal.
There is some feeling in Scotland that it should be possible to have proceedings in Scotland in other instances. What I suggest for consideration is that the Comptroller might sit in Scotland in cases where there is a Scottish internecine fight on a patent matter and that the question of appeal in such cases might be reconsidered. I am well aware that there are arguments both ways, because one wants uniformity of practice, but, on the other hand, the Secretary of State will appreciate very much that in Scottish patent matters there is always a feeling in Scotland that they would like to have them North of the Tweed and the Solway.
There is one other point I should like to make. I received only a short time ago


a letter of complaint which was handed to me from an inventor who says, "Will you, ask the President of the Board of Trade why we charge four times as much for a patent as do the Americans." He gives me some figures which show that our figure is £126 and the American figure is £36. Let me say at once that I have not had time to check this, but obviously if complaints of that kind are made it is right that they should be ventilated and an answer given.
There are two points which I have to make in conclusion. I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman has said about consolidation. The last point is the broader one which I attempted to foreshadow to the House—that whatever our views and whatever our approach be to the methods under which industry should be run, we all agree that the human brain and human intelligence is one of the great assets of our country which we can never despise and which we must always encourage. I look back with some reassurance and cheerfulness to one of the most difficult periods in the economic history of our country. After the Napoleonic Wars we faced grave problems of adjustment and psychology and also were in a period of transition. Terrible though these difficulties appeared in the decade after Waterloo, in another few years after that the light was appearing. In a few years still later the country had come through the darkness entirely, simply because of the inventive faculty of Scottish and English minds.

Mr. Cobb: It should be the other way round.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I was born in Scotland and I sit for England and so I took it in the order of time. But that is the fact: that was the quality and that was the power which took us out of that period of depression and difficulty, and I see no reason to distrust the same quality and power in the minds of my own contemporaries. I hope that we shall receive similar assistance from them, and it is because this Bill wisely and constructively seeks to give that assistance that I welcome it on behalf of myself and my hon. Friends who sit with me.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Henry Nicholls: It is quite true that the Bill is one that will

go quietly through the House without causing very many ripples. It is not the kind of Bill that raises religious or ideological differences; and there are no great financial difficulties involved; and so it should possibly have a quiet passage. I have had the advantage, thanks to the facilities available to hon. Members of this House, of hearing in another place the quiet competency with which the Bill was introduced and handled by the Government spokesman, and I was greatly impressed by the Bill.
However, I have to admit that on reflection, I find it does very little indeed for the inventor. It may do something for those who help to exploit patents, but very little for the inventor himself. As I understand it, the basis for the granting of a patent is that the inventor, in return for disclosing his novelty, should have a monopoly limited in time and scope on the understanding that, at the end of the period, the idea becomes the property of the people and the State. That, broadly, is the arrangement. That is the intention.
Like many other intentions, however, it does not work in practice quite so well. The inventor quite frequently—in most cases, indeed—has to share his secret with someone else even to test it, and when it comes to putting it on the market he has to have assistance from somebody, and usually the inventor finishes up quite poor, while those who exploit the invention get away with it quite comfortably. So far as the people, as represented by the State, are concerned, before the patent has run its life it has usually been superseded by a more novel idea, and so there is nothing left to give to the public. If the idea still has value at the end of, say, 16 years, it is usually wrapped in manufacturing rights and trade contracts and the like, so that no new entrant is likely to be able to obtain a share of its value.
It seems to me that the inventor at the one end and the public at the other do not get away with quite as much as was originally intended. If the idea behind the Bill, which, I think, is clear, is carried into effect, I think that both the general public and the inventor should have their interests at least as strongly preserved as they were before. I do not think that will be so in this particular case. It


seems to me that the patent will be harder to get, that it will take longer to get, that it will be more expensive, and that it will be much easier for anyone else interested in the invention to exploit it, provided he has more capital than the inventor himself. If I am wrong, perhaps I can be disabused before the Debate is concluded.

Mr. John Foster: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House why it will be harder to get?

Mr. Nicholls: Oh, yes. I am sorry I have not my notes with me. Perhaps, I shall not put the case quite as well as I might have done if I had had them with me. It seems to me that the fact that the inventor has to convince an expert before he gets his patent is one most serious reason why it will be harder to get a patent granted. Generally speaking, experts are orthodox people. Novelties do not come from orthodox people. No new idea comes from a completely orthodox person. I think that the inventor will find it much more difficult to get an idea accepted unless it is a very small advance on what has been done before. One can imagine the difficulty. I believe it is on record that when Westinghouse tried to get people interested in his air brake, he found great difficulty, and a very prominent person is reputed to have said, "Do you mean to tell me you are going to stop a railway train with wind?"
It is difficult for the man with the orthodox business mind to think in the terms in which the man with the inventor's mind thinks in conceiving his idea and in trying to translate it into practice. Most inventors are not too well off, and it is true to say, in more senses than one, that necessity is very often the mother of invention. The inventor needs quick and easy cover and protection for his novelty in the early stages, so that he can disclose it for a reasonable period and have an opportunity to try it out in practice, rather than trying to sell the article. That early protection should be not only quick but efficient and cheap. Without that we shall not do much to encourage inventors.
Inventors are very often under-rated. Their actual and potential value to the country is enormous, especially in a world craving for novelty, quite apart from the constant and increasing demand for new ideas to improve efficiency. These men

are a very big asset, and should be encouraged wherever possible. If they find it necessary to accumulate a fortune before it becomes worth their while to present new ideas, the country is likely to lose. I hope that whoever replies to this Debate will give some indication that the Government are examining that aspect, to see whether early cover, which is cheap, efficient and easy to obtain, can be given. If I can have some assurance on that alone, I shall be satisfied that some effort is being made to help inventors.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. Erroll: This Bill, which is receiving a welcome from all sides, and which has already been welcomed in another place, represents the biggest change yet made in our law, and is a very considerable step forward. The Bill is well drafted, and clears up a number of former drafting uncertainties which were the cause of trouble and difficulty to inventors and patent agents alike. I need hardly add that the presentation of this Bill by a Labour Government marks their conversion to a full belief in, and understanding of the rightness of protecting inventive ability and giving it due financial reward—a reward which they nevertheless insist on taxing at altogether penal rates at the present time.
This Bill, which is the outcome of the Swan Report and the interim reports, also serves to provide an opportunity for dealing, we hope for once and for all, with the myth of the suppressed invention. That myth keeps on re-appearing, and is often referred to by Ministers of the Crown at the present time. The most recent example was at the Labour Party Conference at Blackpool this year, when the Minister of Health made easy play with the allegation that many firms suppress good inventions in order to live on the profits of their existing manufactures. Such polemics might be expected at a party conference, and I was much more disturbed to read of a statement in similar vein made by the Lord President of the Council at a public and informed meeting at Letchworth Garden City in the autumn of 1947.

Mr. Speaker: That is not relevant to the Bill. The House sat up all last night.

Mr. Erroll: With great respect, I submit that it is particularly relevant to the


Bill that on the one hand His Majesty's Ministers should be making public statements about the suppression of inventions, and on the other should be bringing in a Bill which deals with the matter in a very adequate manner.

Mr. Speaker: I should have thought that that was going far outside the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Erroll: In that case I must continue with the next part of my remarks. There are several Clauses devoted to the question of non-manufacture. I was trying to lead up to that part of the Bill when I had rounded off my opening remarks. If I turn now to that part of the Bill, I hope I shall not be deemed out of Order if I make a passing reference once again to the remarks of the Lord President of the Council.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: As this is a rather important point, I should be glad of your assistance. Mr. Speaker. As the President of the Board of Trade said, Clauses 16 to 24, which is one of the most important parts of the Bill, deal with the abuse of the monopoly rights. They deal with it in a manner which shows that the present method of protecting patent rights must be maintained. Is it not in Order for Members to draw attention to the fact that His Majesty's Ministers who introduced this Bill have suggested there is an abuse?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman drew attention to that, but he did not do so by going into quotations and speeches in the past. I should have thought there was a limit to that.

Mr. Erroll: I was naturally anxious not to prolong the proceedings, and I was not proposing to quote from the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion. I informed the right hon. Gentleman that I hoped to raise this matter in this Debate. I wrote to him, after he made that speech, for specific cases, but he was unable to support his contention. He was quite unable to produce any cases at all. I hope, therefore, that these allegations will be buried once and for all. I hope that the adequate provisions in this Bill will be quoted by Members opposite when the lie appears again in the future. If anyone feels that inventions are being

suppressed, let him take the necessary steps under Clause 16 and the following Clauses to bring the matter out into the open. Anyone who makes these allegations in future should produce evidence which is both sound in practice as well as in truth.
The President of the Board of Trade drew attention to certain possible restrictions which will be taken care of by Clause 16. There was the possibility of a firm or manufacturer exploiting a patent to the full on the home market but failing to do so for the export market. There was also the possibility of a patent not being worked because the licensee or the owner could not get a licence in respect of a previous patent. I should like to know whether there are any examples of such directions, or whether provisos have been included in this part of the Bill purely to meet possible contingencies in the future, because if abuses exist at the present time the sooner they are brought into the open the better. I suggest that these are theoretical considerations which do not apply at present.
In an otherwise excellent Bill there are two Clauses, to which a good deal of exception could be taken. The first is that which gives certain additional powers to the Comptroller in relation to applications. Clause 6, in effect, empowers the Comptroller to endorse a patent application in respect of any patent which is likely to infringe. That, I believe, is one of the recommendations of the Swan Committee's final report; nevertheless, I think it was a mistake to include it in the Bill. It may be all right if the right endorsements are made, but the possibilities of error are great, and the consequences of such error are even greater still.
First of all, we have in any case the Patent Office involved in questions of infringement and of validity. Surely, ipso facto, if a patent must be valid until it is found to be invalid, it is going to impose a great deal of additional work on the Patent Office if they have to pronounce upon the validity of claims as they come in to them. Indeed, the Clause in this respect represents a major inconsistency, because the comptroller may not pronounce on the validity of a claim before a patent is granted. Nevertheless, under this Clause he has to


pronounce on the validity of a patent if granted, and has, indeed, to pronounce upon possible infringements. If he makes the decision correctly, the consequences may not be serious, but in respect of any error the consequences might be quite important.
Before a patent application is so endorsed, if he insists on making an endorsement or has a mind to, the applicant is involved in arguing his case, and the possible infringement of a prior patent with the comptroller and his staff. Indeed, the task may be so great as to cause a patentee to desist from pursuing an application, and he may prefer to manufacture in secret rather than bring his invention into the open. If a patent has been granted and an endorsement has been carried out, if the endorsement is good, it will be difficult for the patent holder or the patentee to dispose of his invention, because it is unlikely that anyone will take it up. Equally if an endorsement should have been made, everyone interested may be lulled into a sense of false security. I hope we may have some reply to that point which is wholly inconsistent with the spirit of the Bill.
With regard to Clauses 27 and 28, we come to certain important matters affecting the patentee-contractor. The State has always retained the right to make use of patents so granted without paying anything by way of compensation, although in practice it has in the past paid what may be considered by some to be fair compensation and by others not so fair compensation. However, we are not discussing that at present. But these two Clauses, 27 and 28, take away from the patentee contractor any legal right whatever to secure compensation for a patent which he has secured. The patentee contractor as distinct from a mere contractor operating under licence, will not in future be able to obtain any profit for the development of his invention. He will get only a profit on the manufacturing costs.
It may be said, of course, that the costs as worked out by the Government Department placing the contract with the patentee contractor will include an element of profit in respect of development, but we know from experience that that is not always the case. Now that the patentee contractor has no legal claim to such profit it is extremely unlikely that the State will in fact make such allowance;

but that he is indeed entitled to such compensation or profit is accepted by all as equitable. It is most unfair that he should be denied it by the operation of these two Clauses.
The situation is rendered the more absurd by the fact that if the article is manufactured by a third party the State pays, in the price of the article, for the profit on the manufactured cost and pays for the profit on the patent itself by reason of the royalty which is paid by the third party for the use of the invention. So we have the anomalous situation of the man who makes the invention and patents it getting no profit for the development of the invention, and a third party, who does not take the trouble to develop and bring forward new ideas, getting the benefit himself, or at least getting the full profit on the mere manufacturing costs without having to worry himself about development and inventive work on his own premises. Such a development will tend to discourage original invention and will encourage high manufacturing costs so that the patentee contractor may thereby get back what he believes to be his legitimate right, namely, the proper compensation and proper royalties in respect of his invention.
It has to be borne in mind, too, that in the case of those inventions in which the State is primarily interested, it is not possible for the patentee contractor to go in for the free bargaining of the open market. It is possible that only the State can be interested in his invention, but in those cases where the public may be interested as well, the action of the State may be distinctly prejudicial, and it is surely only fair that the patentee contractor should get from the State the equivalent of the full commercial royalties which he would get if his invention were exploited solely in free, normal and commercial markets.
I hope that we may deal with these points and with others during the Committee stage of this Bill, and I will delay the House no further than to add my humble accord to the successful passing of the Bill through its Second Reading.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. Palmer: Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I also pay my respects to the Swan Committee. In fact, I had the interesting experience


of appearing before that Committee as a witness for one or two trade unions and associations which were interested in the work of the Committee. I was impressed by the devastatingly thorough way in which the Committee dealt with evidence, and I was also impressed by the kindly, if penetrating, way in which it dealt with witnesses.
In view of the shortness of time this evening, I am anxious to make only one or two short points upon those parts of the Bill which deal with the employee-inventor. It is a well-known fact that great numbers of inventions are not made by isolated scientists working alone in obscure laboratories, but by engineers, mechanics, and craftsmen in the course of their daily employment. I do not suggest that every employer or firm is unfair or unscrupulous in the policy adopted towards its inventor-employees who work at new ideas, but the employee, by the very nature of his position, is always bound to be in the weaker position; and, therefore, it is necessary that progressive patent legislation should safeguard the employee in two ways.
He should be safeguarded against the shelving of his invention by the employer, either as a result of lack of enterprise or, in some cases, by deliberate suppression; and the potential inventor should be also safeguarded from inadequate reward or even theft of his idea. There is in the Swan Report approval of the Civil Service procedure by which inventors in Government employment may approach the Central Awards Committee. It is said that the procedure has worked well on the whole.
But the position in privately-owned industry was not found to be so satisfactory. The Report did not like the not unusual arrangement by which the potential inventor signs away his right to benefit from any invention he may make bearing on his employer's business. Sometimes the employer agrees to certain conditions to assist the inventor and encourage others, but the Patent Office, under the present procedure, do not regard it as part of their duty to inquire whether the terms of such an agreement with the employee have been fulfilled before granting the application to the employer. There is an interesting paragraph—No. 23, on page 6 of the Report:

We are informed that it is the normal practice of the Patent Office on receiving an application on Form 1E to accept an omnibus agreement of this character as a sufficient warrant for allowing the patent to issue in the name of such an assignee, without inquiry as to whether he has fulfilled his undertakings. It is the practice of the Patent Office to inform the inventor by a letter addressed to him at the address already given by him for official communication, but there is no guarantee that he himself always receives the letter.
The report goes on to condemn, by implication, the undesirability of the omnibus agreement procedure. In the case where there is no written agreement, the Swan Report points out that often both parties can claim to share in the results from an invention. Since a dispute cannot at present be resolved except by recourse to the High Court, the Swan Committee recommended the procedure which is embodied in Clause 39 of the Bill we are discussing. The Comptroller, if an application is made to him by either party, should have the power to determine the respective rights of the parties. Where necessary, and desirable, the Comptroller may arrange for the apportionment of the benefit between the parties.
On this procedure I want to put two points to my hon. Friend who is to reply. First, does the decision by the Comptroller invalidate or over-ride any private agreement already made or would such an agreement be taken into account by the Comptroller in making his assessment? Second, what is exactly meant by apportionment? Is it a percentage division of the proceeds from an invention, a lump sum payment or some kind of royalty? I join with other hon Members in welcoming this Bill.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. John Foster: It is a sad thing that an interesting subject like patents should lead to such dull law and such a dull Bill—I will not say dull speeches, because I think that would be wrong of me. When one considers inventions like the wheel, the safety pin, the yo-yo, the rubber hand, the tank, and so on, and one finds them translated into any Patent Act, one wonders what lawyers are about.
An hon. Gentleman opposite said that he thought the inventor at the present time was badly treated and could easily be "gypped." He wanted the Solicitor-General to answer that point, and I feel


sure that when he does so the Solicitor-General will disagree, and will say that there is no evidence that inventors are being swindled through the operation of the law and that there is no need for the Bill to take any extra precautions on their behalf.
It is also a good thing that my right hon. and learned Friend drew attention to the fact that there was no evidence before the Swan Committee that valuable inventions had been bought up and squashed because they were a danger to vested interests. He referred to the old story of the match that never stopped lighting, or never stopped burning—I forget which—when it was struck. There is also the old story of the oil companies who were supposed to have bought up a patent which turned water into petrol, and the story of the petrol which was a non-inflammable solid which the oil companies bought up. The Swan Committee found that there was no truth in these allegations.
Sometimes a story arises from the fact that the layman is confronted with an invention which does seem to be a marvel. I remember that when I was in Paris an inventor turned up with a car which was supposed not to run on petrol but on water, and it really did. The man had a big battery which split the water into oxygen and hydrogen. He then ignited the mixture and drove the car. Quite well-known scientists would not believe it. They got into the car and it went. It was, in fact, true that the accumulator did divide the water and that the gases were ignited and off went the car. But it was not very difficult to see the fallacy on which the whole thing was founded, namely, that it was against the second law of thermodynamics, that more power was used by the battery to split the water than would have been used by the battery to drive the car. Yet people in Paris to this day say that the petrol companies bought up that invention and it was never heard of again. That is the sort of story that gets about.
I have only two questions to ask. Am I right in thinking that the Bill does not provide for specifications, when they are published, to have published with them the prior applications for patents and the prior literature which has been cited by the Patent Office against those specifications? In the U.S.A., specifications are published with the prior literature

and prior patents cited by the Patent Office, and that is very beneficial to industrialists. Here one must pay a fee to the Patent Office and they take time to answer one, or else one goes and makes a search oneself, and it takes a long time. It may be that somewhere in the Bill, this is provided; I do not know. I may well have overlooked it.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): It does not matter.

Mr. Foster: I wondered whether the experts think it would be worth doing and whether it would be desirable to have the benefit of United States practice.
The other point is this. Does not this Bill perpetuate the situation—or make it worse, perhaps—whereby the Comptroller can amend a claim to make it valid and so leave the state of our law in its present confusion? There have been decisions, difficult to reconcile and follow through, where an invalid claim can be made valid only by what is called "using scissors," cutting it out without adding any phrases. There is another line of case where specific claims can only be held to be valid on amendment. The practical effect is that it is very hard for consultants or patent agents to advise an industrialist whether he is safe in going on with a certain process, because while they can say there are some invalid patents, they cannot tell whether those invalid patents cannot be made good by amendment. Therefore, they are in a difficulty.
I ask the Solicitor-General whether there is any point in that, and whether the power of amendment of a claim should be more closely defined so as to prevent this difficulty and prevent invalid claims from acting as a threat over what might be a process which is in public demand and which does not, in fact, infringe any valid patent.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Blackburn: I intervene only because the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), who I regret has now left the Chamber, was so terribly touchy when I pointed out what the Swann Committee said. Their exact words on the subject of the suppression of patents were:
They have formed the opinion that this type of restriction has been much exaggerated.


They did not say that it did not exist. They had formed the opinion that it had been much exaggerated. The Committee went on further to point out that it was most difficult to obtain evidence on the subject. They were not appointed to inquire into this matter. They were appointed to amend the law of patents, and it is really quite unnecessary for the Opposition to be so touchy on the point unless they have something they want to cover up.
I entirely agree that the real trouble does not, in general, arise from the deliberate suppression of patents, but there are probably far more rogues in the world than many people think. I should like to give two basic reasons why patents are not properly developed when they ought to be. The first reason is when they ought to be developed for uses other than those in which the owner of the patent is concerned. Lord Maugham, in another place, gave not one but several instances in this matter. The zip fastener was one, but we all know so many that it would be a waste of time to refer to them. The second reason is when the owner has insufficient funds to develop the patent to the full.
I want to make a point of substance to the President of the Board of Trade. The real answer does not lie in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) that somebody—I do not know who—should bring proceedings against somebody who is deliberately suppressing a patent, or in the far more frequent cases where the person concerned has not developed it to the full. Generally the fellow who has failed has done so for reasons which are proper to his point of view. The way to deal with them is for the National Research Development Council to make application to take up the patent and develop it to the full. It is a way which would not involve people in litigation.
I should like to answer another point made by the right hon. and learned Gentlemen the Member for West Derby. He asked why in these circumstances, more people have not brought patent actions. I am not speaking as one who professes to know much about this subject, although I have been engaged in it. The first reason is that patent actions are extremely expensive. We all know the briefs which the Chancellor of the

Exchequer used to get. I used to read that he had five figures marked upon them. The second reason is that generally it was far better for the person concerned to get round the patent in one way and another and put the onus on the other fellow to bring procedings against him. However it may be, let us forget about the past. Why should we be absorbed in the past? Let us hope that this Bill, when it becomes law, will be so administered, in conjunction with the National Research Development Council, that all these evils will cease to exist.

10.54 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) began his remarks by reminding us of the diligent search he had made in connection with this Bill to find what was called "a human pulsating element." I made a similar endeavour, but I am afraid I was less successful than him. I believe the House will not regard it as a discourtesy if I do not attempt to deal with the many questions rightly asked, because I think the majority of them—I do not say all of them—are points which could be more fully and more conveniently explored during the Committee stage of the Bill. I hope hon. Gentlemen will not think me discourteous if I limit myself to the two or three points of principle which have emerged from the speeches made.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman, looking for his human, pulsating element, put his finger straight on Paragraph 24 and tempted a great many of us to follow him into a discussion of whether there was suppression of patents and what exactly it was that the Swan Committee had said with regard to it. I do not want to follow him into a discussion as to the precise effect of that paragraph, but to remind the House that it is very incomplete unless one considers what Paragraph 26 says. Paragraph 24 is one side of the picture; paragraph 26 is the other side. Paragraph 26 contains a good deal of information which I hope hon. Gentlemen will bear in mind when they consider the overall picture as to how far it is necessary that drastic powers should be taken to intervene to prevent the use of patents in a way which does not conform with the general public interest.
I could not agree more with the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll), who said that if there is suppression and misuse of patents, why not use the powers given in Clause 16 and Clause 19. That is exactly why those two Clauses are in the Bill, and they will most certainly be used for that purpose if the need arises. Those Clauses embody the first matter of principle to which I would like to make reference.
The Bill does mark an important departure from the structure of the Patents Acts in that it empowers the Board of Trade to take the initiative with a view to preventing the unconscious use of, or the ability to use patents, in a manner which is injurious to the public interest. Clause 19 confers upon the Board of Trade the power to intervene upon the grounds set out in Clause 16 with a view to having a patent marked "Licensed as of Right" or having a licence given to a particular manufacturer. It can in that way take the initiative where it does appear that there is really something in the nature of an abuse, or a failure to make proper use in the public interest of the inventive skill of an inventor.
One has to consider this Bill in its context with two others. One is the Monopolies Act, 1948, and the other is the Act which the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned. Those two Acts and this Bill are designed to march together and to form a kind of comprehensive code. The Monopolies Act deals with the monopolies and restrictive practices in the larger sense. By Section 10 (5), however, it excludes application to patents and leaves the question of patents to be dealt with by this Bill. This Bill, therefore, taken together with the Monopolies Act, gives the Government power to see to it in the public interest that there is no misuse of patents as distinct from monopolistic practices in the wider sense. The other Act really completes the trio and enables help to be given through the medium of the statutory corporation with a view to the general development of patent rights.
I think that the first matter of principle, therefore, is that the Government have the power to take the initiative to prevent abuse; the power to intervene and act as a kind of watchdog in the public interest. This provision in the realm of patent law is not dissimilar to

the power vested in the President of the Board of Trade to act in a similar capacity in regard to the inquiries which can be instituted under the Companies Act, 1948.
I should like to refer to a second point of principle, mentioned by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale. It is the application of this Bill to the Foster-Wheeler decision. That is a highly complicated and intricate matter to the effect that Section 29 of the Patents and Designs Act, 1907, did not authorise a State Department to license a patentee manufacturer, with the result that any contracts entered into with him would be invalid. The way in which the Bill deals with the decision is to enable a Department to require a patentee to supply on reasonable terms the goods manufactured under a patent.
The provision in Clause 14 enables a Government Department to buy them at a reasonable price. The hon. Member complained of that. We think it right that the State should be on the same footing as any ordinary member of the public and should be able to purchase, as members of the public, at a reasonable price. The hon. Member asked if there was any way of testing or disputing a price at which the State sought to acquire an article. There is. The effect of Clause 14 is that application can be made to the court to revoke a patent if a patentee will not supply an article on reasonable terms. It will be for the court to determine what in a particular case are the terms on which an article should be supplied.
There were other incidental matters of detail to which reference was made. For example, we have endeavoured to assist the employee-inventor. We have given him a more expeditious and cheap way of protecting his rights in so far as he may fear that they are being infringed by an unscrupulous employer. There are other changes, but I do not think that the House will desire me to go into further detail at present in the case of this Bill, which is so singularly lacking in what the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby described as human, pulsating elements. With those remarks, I would respectfully suggest that the House might give this Bill a Second Reading, and defer further detailed examination until the Committee stage.

PATENTS AND DESIGNS [Money]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84.—[King's Recommendation signified.]

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Resolved:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the enactments relating to Patents and Designs and to provide for the appointment of an additional puisne judge of the High Court, it is expedient to authorize—

(1) The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums required—

(a) for making payments to patentees and other persons in respect of the use of inventions and registered designs by or with the authority of a Government department under the provisions of the enactments relating to patents and designs as amended by the said Act of the present Session;
(b) for making payments in pursuance of any provision of the said Act of the present Session authorising the payment of compensation to applicants for patents who suffer hardship by reason of directions given under the provisions of the said Act for ensuring secrecy in respect of inventions relevant for defence purposes or under section twelve of the Atomic Energy Act, 1946; and
(c) for the payment of remuneration to scientific advisers appointed to assist the Court or the Appeal Tribunal in pursuance of any provision of the said Act of the present Session.

(2) The payment out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom and out of moneys provided by Parliament of sums equal to the amount of any increase in the sums payable under the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, out of the said Fund and out of moneys so provided respectively, which may be incurred by reason of the provisions of the said Act of the present Session increasing the maximum number of puisne judges of the High Court."—[Mr. Harold Wilson.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

POLICE PENSIONS REGULATIONS

11.5 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): I beg to move,
That the Draft Police Pensions Regulations, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th May, be approved.
The purpose of these regulations, as the House will be aware, is to implement the recommendations made in Part I of the Report of the Committee on police conditions of service, Command Paper 7674, commonly known as the Oaksey Committee's Report, in so far as those recommendations relate to police pensions. To put this in its correct perspective, I may mention that this part of the Report contains recommendations for improved scales, of pay, and for alterations in the scale of allowances, in addition to the recommendations relating to pensions, and that there is a second part of the Committee's Report which is still to come.
My right hon. Friend has already announced that the Government accept the recommendations in the Report as a whole, and the recommendations have already been discussed in the Police Council. Representatives of all ranks there appreciated the difficulties which might arise if one tried to pick and choose in detail among these various recommendations, and they saw some merit in the Government's proposal that effect should be given to the Report as a whole.
It was almost inevitable that everyone did not get what he wanted in this matter, but even those who disagreed with some of the recommendations would agree that the Report is a very careful, comprehensive, and finely balanced piece of work. My right hon. Friend has already paid tribute to the work of the Committee, and I am sure that all hon. Members here who have read the Report will wish to join with me in repeating that tribute to them. It is my right hon. Friend's object to bring the new rates of pension into operation from the 1st July, if they are approved by the House, and from the same date the pay proposals, which will be made in other regulations under the 1919 Act, will also come into operation.
The document before us is rather long because it not only incorporates the changes recommended by the Oaksey Committee, but also revokes and substantially re-enacts in a single revised code


the two sets of pension regulations which the House approved last year. The 1948 regulations, subject to certain minor modifications which will be found in the Appendix to these regulations, will continue to apply after 1st July only to pensions granted in respect of retirement between 5th July, 1948, and 1st July, 1949, and to deaths which occur before 1st July, 1949. Subject to that exception, the draft regulations will entirely supersede and incorporate the regulations of 1948.
The effect of each draft regulation in implementing the recommendations is set forth fairly comprehensively in the Appendix to the Statement—Command Paper 7707—issued at the same time as the regulations. Therefore I hope hon. Members will not complain if I do not go in detail through each of the regulations as it applies to the recommendations of the Committee.
I should like first to dispose of a minor point arising out of a statement in paragraph 14 that these regulations include certain minor changes other than those recommended by the Oaksey Committee. These are all technicalities of a minor nature, and I have no reason to think any of them is controversial. All I propose to say about them at the moment is that a number of them simply remove obscurities of wording or make good certain omissions in the 1948 Code, and in the few cases where a substantial change is made—as in paragraphs 7, 78, and 79—the change is advantageous to the rather limited classes of persons to whom it applies.
If I may turn to the main recommendations, the first one as summarised in the Report, is to the effect that no major alteration should be made at present in the structure of the pensions scheme. The Committee call attention, referring to the existing pensions scheme, to the high proportion of the total remuneration of the police which comes from pensions, and to the relatively low proportion contributed towards that by the men themselves. They point out that whereas the cost of pay is between £25 million and £26 million annually, the annual cost of pensions is as high as £10 million, and as regards the contributions which go to make that up, four-fifths comes from public funds and only one-fifth from the contributions of the men themselves. While the Committee suggest that a

general review may be necessary at some future date, particularly taking into account the National Insurance Scheme, they do not think it right to make major changes now. Therefore, the improvements in the amount of the pensions which will become payable under these new regulations is due not to any major change of structure but to the improved scales of pay, recommended by the Committee, on which these new pensions will be calculated.
I should like to come straight to the proposal which of all the pensions proposals has aroused the most discussion, namely, that the pension should be calculated on the basis of the average pensionable pay over the last three years of an officer's service. This is already the case where promotion has occurred within the last three years, but not otherwise. This has been discussed by the Police Council and some objections have been raised to it. Averaging is the normal system in schemes in most other public services. After the first three years after these new rates have come into force averaging is likely to make small difference to the pensions payable to members of the police forces, and probably this small difference will only affect a very small number of the people retiring. If hon. Members look at the scales of pay set out in the Appendix to Cmd. 7707, they will see that that statement of mine is correct.
The objection is to the introduction of averaging at the same time as the introduction of the new rates of pay. The objection is two-fold: firstly, it is said that this will have an adverse effect on promotion because it is liable to lead to senior officers who might otherwise have retired continuing until their average pay reaches the same figure as their actual pay; and secondly, that it is unfair to men who will already have done a full period to have to continue their service for a further period in order to reach the maximum.
The Committee considered all the arguments on this matter very carefully, in paragraphs 124 to 128 of the Report, and I do not think I shall attempt to repeat them here. I shall only summarise two of the arguments. The first is that the Committee quite strongly says that it would not be right that men should enjoy substantial improvement of pensions except in return for at least some


service at the new rates. They have stated that as a principle. The second argument is the purely practical one that if the regulations were not introduced it might lead to the immediate retirement on the introduction of the new scales of pay and pension of very large numbers of senior officers who already have more than 25 years service.
There are, according to the Committee, 7,000 officers who would be in a position to retire, 1,000 of these being in the Metropolitan Police. If they were to retire rapidly after the initial day, that would seriously embarrass an already undermanned service. I think that this latter argument goes at any rate some way towards meeting, as regards police manpower, the possible effect of the other argument that this will discourage the younger men by slowing up promotion. There may be, perhaps, an immediate slow-up of promotion through all senior officers remaining in the force; but that can only be a temporary effect, because there is bound to be compensating acceleration of retirement as the three years' period comes to an end.
The Committee says, with regard to averaging, that this is an essential concomitant of the substantiation of pay that they propose. To that recommendation His Majesty's Government feel that they must adhere. There are only two other points which I wish to make. Particular care has been taken to avoid any possibility that the safeguard that was put into Section 2 (b) of the Police Pensions Act of 1948 should not be infringed. There is therefore a provision in Regulation 87 for election by a serving member of the force if he prefers to have his pension based on his actual pay on the existing rates. He can do so, but, of course, in that event, he does not receive the new rates of pay.
There is another point which I would like to emphasise because it is import ant. That is, that in no case will a pension based upon average pay at the new scales recommended by the Oaksey Committee be less than the pension which a retiring member would have received under the pay and pensions scales at present in force. That is specifically laid down in Regulation 60. Even apart from that regulation, it is a mere matter of arithmetic to discover that anyone who has served for even quite a brief period

at the new rates of pay will receive a pension which will not only be not less, but substantially higher, than it would have been on the old rates. Hon. Members will find the table on page 40 of the Report.
I shall give one example, taking the case of a constable who completes 25 years' service, on 1st July this year, the day upon which the new scales are to come into operation. His pension under the pre-Oaksey scales would be £182 a year. If he retires immediately on that day, having not served at all on the new rates, the Oaksey scale would not affect him. He would receive the same amount, namely, £182. But if he goes on for a single year, the scales begin to diverge. Under the old scale, he would have received £195, but under the Oaksey scales, with averaging, it would be £204. A year later, whereas the old scale gives £207, the Oaksey scale gives £227, with averaging; and moving on to 1954, which is the year when he would complete 30 years' service, he would have £280 as against £244. I think that that makes quite clearly my point that initially the new pension, with averaging, cannot be worse, and gets better as the months go by.
The final point is that there is the special provision for those members who were serving on 28th August, 1921. If they are to retire by the operation of the age limit, they will be able to calculate their pensions on actual pay. That is an exception reached in respect of averaging, and I think it will be no surprise to hon. Members that this class should be singled out for special treatment since this is a special class under the provisions of the Police Act of 1921.
There are a number of other recommendations, some of them quite important, but, as I have said, I do not propose to take the House right through them. At the same time, I should mention two or three other matters. It is important not to overlook that, in the Second Schedule, there are increases in what are known as the "Scheme 1 pensions" for widows. The new figures are £50 for widows of constables and sergeants, £60 for widows of inspectors, and £70 for higher ranks. There are also increases for the children's allowances, and there is a transitional allowance for the widows of men who die before qualifying,


to enable them to be helped before getting benefits under the National Health Acts. It is provided that service below 20 years, for the first time, shall be reckonable as pensionable service, and there is one provision whereby women's contributions shall be reduced from 5 to 4½ per cent., in line with the lesser benefits received by women.
I hope that I have said enough to show that, while there are no drastic changes in these matters there are some features which will bring substantial benefits; and the new rates of pay will result in appreciably higher pensions in most cases, and lower pensions in none. Whether the new proposals, taken with the rest of the Report, will encourage recruitment and check wastage, I submit to the House it is too early to say; but I think right hon. and hon. Members will agree that it is permissible to hope that that will result, and in that spirit I commend the recommendations to the House.

11.24 p.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake,: It is a sorry reflection upon the arrangement of public business made by His Majesty's administration that, after having taken an extra week's holiday at Whitsun, we should be discussing a new code of police pensions with the necessity that, if the Home Secretary's plans are to be fulfilled, they should become law by midnight tomorrow; and, moreover, it is a sad thing that we should begin discussion at this late hour and be forced to complete it after an all-night sitting.
I should like to join in the tribute which the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary has paid to the work of the Oaksey Committee and if in the remarks I am going to make I am somewhat critical of their recommendations in one particular aspect, that must be taken in the light of my statement that their Report is an admirable document lucidly written, clearly expressed, and obviously the result of a great deal of industrious investigation. Pensions are, of course, related to pay, and it is almost impossible to discuss pensions in a vacuum without any reference whatever to pay. If I mention pay it will not be with a view to discussion of the merits of rates of pay. With those we cannot be concerned on this occasion, but pay is the vital factor in the ascertainment of what the pension will be.
This story begins with the Home Secretary's statement of increased rates of pay for the Police Force on 5th November, 1946. The initial rate of pay for constables at that date was raised from 90s. to 105s., and for sergeants from 128s. to 150s. Those were substantial increases of 15s. for constables and 22s. for sergeants. The increase is reasonably comparable to the scale of increases which the right hon. Gentleman is going to adopt as a result of the recommendations of the Oaksey Committee. These arrangements were announced in November, 1946, and were to last for three years. In the meantime the right hon. Gentleman undertook that there should be an inquiry into conditions of service of the Police.
The important thing in relation to those increases of pay is that they carried with them automatic increases in pension based upon the rate of salary in payment at the date of retirement. Retirement on pension as from November, 1946, remained optional to the police officer after 25 years' service; full pension could be earned after 30 years' service; and retirement remained obligatory for constables and sergeants at 55. No suggestion was made then that pensions, instead of being based on salary at the date of retirement should be calculated on the average salary for the last three years of service.
On 22nd March last year there was a Debate in this House on the Consolidated Fund Bill on police conditions which was opened by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), the Father of the House. The police were at that time as they are still, seriously below strength and the gravity of the position was admitted by the Home Secretary who then agreed that the promised inquiry should take place forthwith instead of waiting until 1949. What had happened was that inflationary rises in prices, and wage increases granted in other employments, had to a large extent invalidated the three-year agreement of 1946. In consequence the Oaksey Committee was appointed on 13th May last year to consider in the light of the need for the recruitment and retention of an adequate number of suitable men and women for the police forces, and to report on pay, emoluments, allowances, pensions, promotions, methods of representation and negotiation, and other conditions of service.
Those were the terms of reference of the Committee, but all that is before us today is Part I of their Report, which was published early in April. Part II, which will be more important than Part I and which deals with all the other matters excepting pay and pensions, is not yet available to us—and that, I think, is surprising in view of the first sentence of Part I of the Report, which says:
We have completed our inquiry and we have the honour to present the First Part of our Report.
If the inquiry was completed so long ago as the early part of April, it seems a little strange that the House should not have had the whole Report, including the second part, at the present time. Nevertheless, the Government have accepted as a whole the recommendations contained in Part I of the Report and which are summarised in the White Paper, Cmd. 7707, "Statement on Pay and Conditions of Service in the Police."
In the meantime, whilst all this has been going on, the Police Pensions Act of 1948 was passed by Parliament in February last year. That Act, under which these regulations are made, brought about a revolutionary change in the method of dealing with police pensions. Certain advantages were claimed for this revolutionary change, which meant that in future the rates of police pensions were to be embodied in regulations and not embodied in statutes. The advantages claimed were that it was frequently thought desirable to make minor amendments in the Act in regard to pensions, and this could be more easily brought about if they were embodied in regulations than if they necessitated the passage of a Bill through Parliament. On that matter, my hon. Friends on this side of the House pointed out the disadvantages of legislation by means of regulation, which means that the House is only free to accept or reject the regulations as a whole. These regulations exemplify that objection very strongly because, whilst they contain many agreeable features in respect of the police and a certain number of improvements, they are in one respect exceedingly defective—and that is in the introduction of the three years' average for the calculation of pension.
I think the House is therefore faced with a great dilemma, because if this matter had been embodied in the Bill,

there is not the slightest doubt that the Government would have been forced by the opinion of Members on both sides of the House to abandon this project for the three years' average in place of the present rate of pay at the date of retirement. A clause in the Police Pensions Act, 1948, was embodied on the Report stage by way of meeting the demands on the Home Secretary by Members on all sides of the House. That Clause formed Section 2 of the Act, headed: "Protection for Serving Members" and the operative words of that Section are these:
Any regulations made under Section 1 of this Act shall be so framed as to ensure that the scale of pensions payable under these regulations is not, unless the serving member elects otherwise, less favourable than the scale applicable in his case immediately before the coming into force of these regulations.
That was read by everybody, including the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who introduced the Clause, as meaning that no regulation could in any way worsen the conditions as regards pension of any member of the Police Force. The hon. Gentleman in introducing the Clause said:
This Clause has been put down to implement an undertaking given last week that we would try to give some guarantee to members of the Police Force now or in the future that their basic conditions could not be worsened by any regulations which might be made.
I do not think anybody could challenge the fact that the substitution of a three years' average of salary before retirement for the actual salary upon retirement date is bound in many cases to worsen the position of the recipient of the pension. This Clause and this assurance were accepted as an undertaking that the regulations would not worsen anybody's condition. I will not weary the House by citing the speeches of other hon. Members who took part in that Debate but that was the generally accepted interpretation of Section 2 of the Act of 1948.
Now we come to the recommendations of the Oaksey Committee upon this matter of police pensions and the recommendation that there should be this three years' average. It seems to me that the attention of the Oaksey Committee was never at any time drawn by anybody to the protection given by Section 2 of the Act of 1948. In the paragraphs which deals with pensionable pay and the suggestion for the future that there should be a three years' average, there is no


reference of any sort or kind to Section 2 of the Act of 1948.
As the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State has pointed out, the Oaksey Committee based their case for a three years' average upon two grounds. The first is that the three years' average is the usual thing in the Civil Service for teachers and for local government officers. So far as that contention is concerned, it does seem to me that the result they desire could be reached by introducing the average clause for future entrants to the Police Force and excepting those who are serving in the force at the present time. The second reason given by the Oaksey Committee for suggesting the three years' average is this. They say there are about 7,000 men who have averaged 25 years of service and if any considerable proportion of them retired within the next few months, it would be a serious embarrassment to an already under-manned service. Averaging in pay over the last three years of service would encourage these men to postpone their retirement.
That really is saying, in other words, that we are going to use this averaging as a bludgeon to keep men in the service who would otherwise retire from it. In my opinion, the view that because you are increasing rates of pay and, if you were correspondingly to increase rates of pension, that is going to lead to a spate of retirements from the Police Force is quite unfounded. It is pure surmise upon the part of the Oaksey Committee. In my view, just as many men will be induced to remain in the force by the increased rates of pay being granted, as will be induced to retire from the force by the increased rates of pension which are related to these rates of pay.
That is not only my opinion. It is borne out by actual experience. When the right hon. Gentleman increased the rates of pay in November, 1946, by very substantial figures—15s. for constables and 22s. for sergeants—with pensions increased to a degree corresponding to those increases in pay, there was no spate of retirements from the Police Force. Evidence in the Report is in fact directly to the contrary. During the year 1947 the rates of retirement from the Police Force were infinitely lower than they were in the year 1946. If hon. Members will look at the table set out in paragraph 13 of the Oaksey Committee's report

they will see that the number of resignations and retirements from the Police Force in 1946, before pay was increased, was 8,843, and in the year 1947 it fell to 5,235.
There is, therefore, statistical evidence available to show that increasing pay and pensions simultaneously does not lead, and will not lead, to a spate of retirements from the Police Force. I say that this view of the Oaksey Committee, that to give increases in pension corresponding to the increases in pay now proposed would lead to a large number of retirements from the Force, is in fact ill-founded.
It would have been possible for the Oaksey Committee, with all the resources at their disposal, to have made out a case that these men were likely to retire, based upon past statistics, if those statistics were, in fact, available, but the fact is that the statistics which are available disprove the contention that there would be a spate of retirements if pensions were increased proportionately to the new rates of pay. The Oaksey Committee were apparently unaware of the special protection given to serving members by the Act of 1948. The Government, on the other hand, were well aware of this special protection, and in the Command Paper covering the Report of the Oaksey Committee they devoted a very long paragraph—paragraph 15—to explaining the position. They first of all set out their reasons—which incidentally, I regard as very bad reasons—for adopting the average class, and then go on to say:
These recommendations have been accepted as a whole by the Government, and for the reason given by the Committee, the Government would not feel justified in accepting the new scales of pay without introducing the average for pension purposes.
They go on to say that it has been reported to them that to impose the average without giving the members of the Police Force any option would be a breach of the safeguard under Section 2 of the Act of 1948. Then they state that in order to get out of this difficulty, or words to that effect, they have given these men an option, because, under Section 2 of the 1948 Act, we find that conditions shall not be altered unless the police officer so elects. What is the option which is to be given to these men in order to endeavour to comply with Section 2 of the 1948 Act?
It is that they may, if they like, stay on the existing, pre-Oaksey rates of pay, and in that case will get their pensions based on their actual pay on the date of retirement. I think that is a most ridiculous and very unfair option to put to these men. The existing rates of pay have been declared by the Oaksey Committee to be inadequate. They recommend substantial increases. The Government say: "If you stand on your rights under the Act of 1948 and demand to be pensioned on your retiring salary, then you can continue to draw the pre-Oaksey rates of pay and derive no benefit from the benefits recommended by the Committee." I think that is most unfair. Consider the results in the cases of two men in the police force with exactly the same length of service. One is older than the other, is entitled to retire and will get the benefit of paragraph 87 of the regulations. Such a man can go out within the next month if he pleases and get the full pension without the average clause operating. The younger man, with precisely the same service, will have to stay another three years in the force if he is to qualify for the full rate of pension. I say that is unfair and was not contemplated by the authors of the Act of 1948.
I think there will be very evil consequences and repercussions as a result of the operation of this recommendation of the Oaksey Committee, the members of which were not aware of Section 2 of the 1948 Act. I think that the only result—or the main result—of the adoption of this proposal by the Government will be that a large number of older men in the force will feel that they have been badly treated. I will not put it any higher than that—although it might be put nearly as high as a breach of faith with these men on the part of the Government. The Government may gain a little in retaining a few men a little longer than they would have otherwise stayed in the force. Statistically the evidence, so far as it is available, does not prove that they will do so, but I consider that they may by this proposal compel a certain number to stay longer in the force than they would have done. What will the Government lose on the other hand? What will they lose in morale and efficiency? Quite a large number of men, the senior men, in the force who ought to be setting an example to the younger men will feel that they have been maltreated.
This Government has broken faith on more than one occasion with different sections of the community. I think that the iron and steel shareholders and the university electors and various other people have had a raw deal from time to time. If there is one class of the community to which the Government should not give a raw deal it is our Police Force. We depend entirely for law and order in this country on the police. Innumerable tributes have been paid to their magnificent qualities. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can afford to adopt an attitude which will make many thousands of them feel that they have been the victims of some petty economy—some cheese-paring policy designed not so much to save money as to put them under duress to remain in the force for a further period of years. I should have hoped that the objections to this average clause would have been so strong in all parts of the House that the right hon. Gentleman might see his way clear to withdraw these regulations and bring forward new regulations without this obnoxious clause.

11.48 p.m.

Mrs. Braddock: I think that the main reason why there is so much criticism of the suggested new pensions arrangements is because we have had no opportunity to discuss to any extent the decisions and findings of the Oaksey Committee. If we had been given that opportunity, and if we had been able to express the opinions held in various local authorities and watch committees throughout the country on the findings of the Committee, it might have made it easier for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to prepare regulations which would have been received with more satisfaction in the force. It is difficult even now to discuss the position fairly because we are to a large extent restricted to discussion of the pensions regulations before us.
As these regulations are based on the altered pay conditions, I believe it might be possible to make one or two general comments, because I do not want to go fully into the question of pensions regulations in view of the comments of the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake). But the difficulty seems to be the length of time that it took the Oaksey Committee to deal with the Report, and prepare the first section. I think the Report


makes the excuse that the delay was due to the fact that certain authorities and people did not come forward with the desired evidence soon enough. There was delay in getting the evidence. I find on investigation that the Police Federation had given its evidence very well indeed, but there seemed to be a lack of speed on the part of the municipalities and county authorities. In those circumstances I should have thought it would have been helpful if the Home Secretary had decided to put the pay recommendations into operation retrospectively. That, of course, would have helped in averaging the pension over the last three years of service.
There is a very great amount of dissatisfaction among the police forces. They know that in the past there have been all sorts of regulations dealing with their conditions a bit at a time, and they had hoped that with a full and comprehensive report the difficulties of the past would have been smoothed out, and the position generally of the forces throughout the country would have been regularised.

On the question of rent allowances——

Mr. Speaker: All these matters concerning conditions in the service are not in the regulations, which relate only to pensions.

Mrs. Braddock: There is a feeling that if the rent was included in rates of pay that the pension arrangements would be different from what they are. There are items of that sort which, I contend, ought to have been discussed before the regulations were laid at all. There are a number of items which would seriously affect the question of the pensions regulations we are discussing. I know how awkward it is under the Rules of the House to discuss these matters, but they ought to have been discussed prior to these regulations being brought in. Unfortunately I should be outside the Rules of Order if I pursued these points, but I do hope the Home Secretary will look at these questions, particularly the one about the three years' averaging, which I know is causing great dissatisfaction among the police forces generally.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. Frederic Harris: I hope the hon. Lady will not mind if I

do not follow her too far in what she said except to echo the general comment that there is unhappiness and dissatisfaction among the police with regard to the Oaksey Report in respect of pensions. I feel strongly indeed about discussing a most important issue at such a peculiar hour after we have put in so much work. I did not get to bed at all last night, and the night before I had only three hours' sleep. On this vital issue I am going to cut out much of the detail because, quite frankly, I am too tired to concentrate on it. However, I bring these things to the notice of the Home Secretary in all good faith.
I have the privilege of taking a considerable interest in police youth clubs where I have been able to get the reactions of the members of the force, for instance to the Oaksey Report. The comments I am about to make are completely above party politics. Tonight we are perfectly in order in discussing this matter as individuals, and there is no party issue involved. I hope that the Home Secretary will bear in mind what I say, considering that I am really trying to echo the present feelings of members of the force on the Oaksey Report.
As the hon. Lady said, the general reaction is very unfavourable. That is most markedly so among those men who are classified as the lower grades. I have heard such comments as "We are fed up, frankly," and "It is worse than before." I feel that the Home Secretary would wish me to tell him that. He would like to think that the police are satisfied with these pensions suggestions, and I think he would wish to know the general reactions to the suggestions in the Report. The police have done such a grand job of work that it is up to us to give them as much satisfaction as we can under present conditions. I have studied the Report most carefully, and I feel that it acknowledges that the police in our land are in a special position generally in relation to the community as a whole, and should be reasonably free from financial worry——

Mr. Speaker: I was afraid the hon. Gentleman was going to discuss the Report as a whole. He must discuss the regulations.

Mr. Harris: I am very conscious of the fact that I must keep to the pensions, but the financial position of the members of


the police is tied up with these Pensions Regulations.
In paragraph 135, the Committee proposes a measure which would create anxiety, I feel, which was removed by the Police Pensions Act, 1948. I cannot see how this paragraph can provide contentment, the need for which is indicated in paragraph 25 of this Report. Under the Police Pensions Act, 1948, any member of a police force is entitled to his pension after 25 years. I know that I may be echoing some of the comments of my hon. Friend, but I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will forgive me. Members of police forces will not accept without considerable misgiving this new proposal which cancels this absolute right.
It has been stressed that the Report which we are discussing is only the first part. Presumably there are recommendations to come. Yet, in Command Paper No. 7707, it is clearly stated that it is proposed that the commencing date of the Pensions Regulations shall be 1st July, 1949, which is less than a couple of days away. Does this mean that members of the police forces must decide immediately whether to accept a new contract and have their pensions calculated on average pay, and at the same time relinquish the absolute right to a secure pension after 25 years? Are members of the police forces not to be given any time to consider the deliberations of this House tonight about this particular matter? Are they not to be allowed to see the full Report before signing what I honestly believe to be an irrevocable document?
As I see it, under the new proposals for pensions based on average pay for three years, anyone due to retire this year will have to serve another three years to get the new rates. I hope I am wrong in thinking that that is so; but it is an important point. Under the Police Pensions Act, 1921, many men added another five years to their service by the change to two-thirds pension after some 30 years of service. Together with this possible three years, to which I have referred, in my opinion that may make an additional eight years' service. By the extension of the possible length of service, the police officer is actually working for only a proportion of his pay during those years, because he would otherwise be receiving at least half-pay as

pension. His real beneficial income, therefore, obviously must decrease with his further length of service.
On an actuarial basis, there is not sufficient attraction, in my opinion, in the new rates for the lower grades to make them wish to extend their service. The inducement to stay on these three years is far greater for the higher ranks than for the lower grades, and one may expect the higher grades to accept the position a little more readily. If they do, this in turn will prejudice the chances of promotion from the lower ranks. I feel, and I know that members of the police forces feel, that this will create further dissatisfaction. I will not detain the House, and I will finish by asking whether, if the new rates do not apply immediately for the purpose of pension, the Home Secretary could not say that the average pay can be calculated retrospectively from May, 1948, when the Oaksey Committee was appointed?

12.6 a.m.

Mr. Mellish: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman for North Croydon (Mr. Frederic Harris) is so tired; but he really cannot blame us for that. It was his own party which did all the talking last night and throughout the early hours of yesterday morning. But I say quite sincerely that I appreciated the tone of his speech, which was without party prejudices, and it is a pity that his right hon. Friend who spoke from the Front Bench did not do the same. The imputation that the Government are letting down the police is utter nonsense. The police know and recognise that this Labour Government has done more than the party opposite has done for them for a long time. The anomalies which have been mentioned have been in existence for a great many years. I do join issue with the hon. Member about the averaging of the pensions recommended by the report.
There is an anomaly which breaks down in the terms of reference of the Oaksey Committee; those terms were to find ways and means to stop people leaving the police and to find ways of encouraging new recruits. I do not think that the report is going to do that because, first of all, anyone due for retirement will stay on, particularly if a sergeant or inspector, in order to qualify for higher pension. A constable can see little chance of promotion,


and he will resign forthwith. Figures and statistics of resignations from the police—the specific figure was actually 12.6 per cent.—are of those men who have entered and left within two years. They left, I submit, because the promotion prospects are so poor and, secondly, because of the nature of the job.
These figures should have conveyed to the Oaksey Committee that averaging will not solve this problem. There are anomalies which are very unfair, and I am sincere in this point. It is the point which is causing unhappiness among the police; they do not quarrel with the rates of pay and pension. I agree with the hon. Member for North Croydon in his point with regard to the time taken for the Oaksey Committee to arrive at its decisions. It is fundamental in all the industrial disputes which we have today that the negotiating machinery takes too long to reach a decision. I should have thought that the Committee could have functioned in less than a year, and I think there is a danger of creating friction where it could have been avoided.
There is one further point in Cmd. 7707. In this House a number of policemen are employed and we can see the anomaly that affects some of them. A man who is going to retire or who is compelled to retire at 55 will receive £5 7s. 3d. pension a week. A man who has done precisely the same number of years service and who is also due to retire but is not 55, has to do another three years before he gets a pension. If he retires at once, although he may have done his 30 years service, he will get only £4 13s. 4d. I hope the Home Secretary will look at this matter again and realise that this criticism is levelled for the purpose of trying to help the police.

12.11 a.m.

Mr. Grimston: Having taken some part in the proceedings under the 1948 Pensions Act on which these regulations are based, I should like to say a word with regard to the three years' average. It is necessary to recall the atmosphere in which the debates took place when the Bill was first introduced. There was considerable apprehension in the force that pension rates and conditions, which hitherto had been enshrined in an Act of Parliament, were going to be made subject to regulation. In response

to that feeling, the Home Secretary took certain steps. In favour of doing this by regulation it was argued that, through the impact of the National Insurance scheme and the fact that it might be necessary to make alterations in police pensions, it would be clumsy to have to introduce a new Act every time and it might result in improvements being delayed. To meet the apprehensions of the police the Home Secretary, on the Report stage of the Bill, introduced a new Clause in which it was understood at the time that existing pensions conditions were to be made absolutely secure. Introducing this Clause the Under-Secretary said:
The Clause has been put down to implement the undertaking given last week that we would try to give a guarantee to members of the Police Force, now or in future, that their basic conditions would not be worsened by any regulation which might be made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th July 1948; Vol. 447, c. 2274.]
He went on to say that this was a continuing guarantee to new entrants in that at the point they came in, no subsequent regulation should worsen their conditions. One of the conditions of a pension is the method of assessment and it is worsening the condition of a pension, however one argues the new rates of pay, to base it on a three-year average and not on the rate of pay at the date of retirement. What happens? The Oaksey Committee, not apparently as the right hon. Gentleman said, having taken note of this provision in the 1948 Act, recommends increased pay, but the Secretary of State is now saying to existing members, "Unless you elect to accept worsened condition of pensions, I shall not give you the rise which the Oaksey Committee recommend."
I submit to the House—and this is not a party point—that the Home Secretary may be within the letter of the law, but he is certainly not within the spirit in which the House accepted this Clause to safeguard men already in the force. I believe that if the Home Secretary is to keep the undertaking given to and as understood by the House at the time, both in the letter and the spirit, if he wants to adopt averaging at all, he must confine it to new entrants who come in after the regulations have come into force. Otherwise the Home Secretary is not keeping the undertaking given. He is getting round it by saying to the men "Unless you elect to do what I want


you to do, I am going to keep your pay down." Has he realised that it strikes one in that way? I believe that that is one of the causes of the resentment felt about the three years' provision—that the right hon. Gentleman is taking away from existing members of the force their free power of election under the Section of the 1948 Act.
I really do press the Home Secretary to reconsider the matter. I believe that it is very short-sighted and that it will leave a feeling in the minds of the police that the Home Secretary can drive a coach-and-horses through the guarantee they had in the 1948 Act. That will not conduce to good feeling in the Police Force. These regulations must come into force, but there is nothing to prevent the Home Secretary from saying that he will introduce an amending regulation to put this matter right, which I believe he should do. He will then be taking advantage of the very procedure for which this Act was designed—he can put the thing right by making it a matter of regulation without having to come back to the House with a Bill.
If the Home Secretary does reconsider this, I believe he will go a long way towards putting right the feeling which exists at the moment and he will put back confidence in the Police Force that they will not be let down on an undertaking given to them. I do not want to say any more about the merits of the three years' average in regard to future entrants. There is no question there of an undertaking going by the board. I believe it is wrong, but the point I am addressing myself to is that the Home Secretary will leave a nasty taste in the mouth of the present members of the force if he makes them elect to worsen the conditions for pensions as the price of getting what the Oaksey Committee say they should get.

12.19 a.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): As I expected, the greater part of the discussion has taken place round this question of averaging. The Oaksey Committee were perfectly aware of Section 2 of the Police Pensions Act, 1948. They quote it in paragraph 161 and they say:
On balance we feel that the greater facility of amendment which is possible under the new

arrangement is an advantage to the service. We hope, for example, that it will enable the recommendations which we made on the subject of pensions to be implemented almost immediately.
They not only knew of its existence, but they expected that it would be used in bringing their recommendations into effect.

Mr. Peake: If I may interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, I would point out that they do not seem to be aware that Section 2 might be an obstacle to the adoption of the three years average proposal.

Mr. Ede: I had a discussion with the noble and learned Chairman of the Committee, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the paragraph which I have just quoted quite accurately embodied their views. Now, do let us examine what the position will be. There are a number of men who, during the next three years, will be retired compulsorily from the Police Force because they have reached the maximum age—a constable at 55, a sergeant at the same age, a provincial inspector at 60, a Metropolitan inspector at 55, a provincial superintendent at 60, a Metropolitan superintendent at 55, and a chief constable at 65. Some men during the next three years will, in fact, reach these ages and will be compulsorily retired.
With regard to these men, we provide that those of them who were in the service on 28th August, 1921, shall be retired on a pension based on their actual pay so that these men get exactly the same conditions as they would have got had there been no averaging introduced. The other men who are in the force will get their pension, not on average, but on actual salary. Now, every other man in the force who retires on age limit will have three years at the maximum of his scale before he retires. Therefore, it does not matter to him whether he averages or not, because the average of three years at the maximum will, of course, be the maximum. So I cannot myself see that any real grievance is suffered by any man.

Mr. Mellish: Surely, the whole point is that when these men joined up, they were told it was 25 years, then it was increased to 30 years, and now they are told it is 33 years. Surely that is not right.

Mr. Ede: I do not think my hon. Friend has followed the argument I have used. The only man who might suffer on going out on the age limit would be a man who gets promotion during his last three years of service. It is a most unusual thing in the Police Force for a man to get a promotion carrying an increase of salary in his last three years, but if he does it now, under the existing law, he averages. Therefore, he is not in any worse position.

Mr. Grimston: Might I put one case here? Take the hypothetical case of a man who has just been promoted and who then has an accident or has to be retired from the service and goes on to a pension proportionate to his service. Under present conditions, I think I am right in saying that he would get a proportionate pension based on his rate.

Mr. Ede: As I am advised, where a man's promotion comes within the three years, now he has a three years' average applied. I do desire to assure hon. Members that I have given very close attention to this matter in an endeavour to see that, as far as I can avoid it, no man shall in fact suffer an injury in the way that is suggested. It is, of course, a very complicated matter.
The right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) drew some deductions from the figures on page 5 of the Report, which I do not think are quite justified. The enormous number of retirements in 1946 was due to the fact that on 31st December, 1945, I "unfroze" the police. I am bound to tell the House that when I met the Police Council and discussed this matter with them very carefully and at great length—and it was then agreed that there was no other course open to me but to adopt this procedure—their grievance was that men who had not reached the maximum ought to be able to retire.
In fact we were told that a number of men who had attained their 25 years' service had merely stayed on for a few months while the Oaksey Committee was sitting, and that they intended to retire as soon as the new scales of pay came into operation on 1st July. There are 7,000 men in the English and Welsh Police Forces who would be eligible to go out on 2nd July and claim to be pensioned on pay that they had only drawn

for one day. I do not know what the figure is for Scotland, but I understand that proportionately it might be even higher than it is in England. That is not a position that anyone responsible for the administration of the Police Force in this country could contemplate for one minute. One of the difficulties that I have to face is the fact that most of the large forces in the country are very considerably undermanned.

Mr. F. Harris: I think that is a rather unnatural case which the right hon. Gentleman has quoted. What about the genuine case of the man who is about to retire this year? Is it not a fact that he has to serve another three years to enjoy the new rates?

Mr. Ede: If he serves three additional years he gets the advantage both of his length of service and the increased pay. He gets very substantial advantage from staying on. I have the responsibility, as police authority for the Metropolis, of providing police officers for the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and frankly I could not contemplate a situation in which I lost 1,000 men during the coming year, or coming three years, if they could go out under the conditions I have mentioned. May I say this also? The Police Federation has always been strongly opposed to having men working in the police forces under two different systems. They have always held that it makes for great difficulty in actual administration if one man is working under one system and scale and another man is working under another.
May I say to my hon. Friend for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) that one really cannot contemplate bringing rent into pensionable allowances. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware of the great advantages which the police pensions have over other public schemes, which I have been able to discover. The value of the pension to a policeman as a percentage of pay is 25 per cent. In the Civil Service it is 18 per cent. The teachers' scheme is just going under investigation. It is known to be more than 10 per cent., and I think it is somewhere between 12 and 14 per cent. The percentage of the local government officers' scheme is between 14 and 15. The teachers' and local government officers' pensions are calculated on an average of five years.
I am bound to say that, on the merits of the issue, I think the average system is right. It is applied in the Civil Service and in nearly every other form of public service, so far as I know, and I think that the arguments adduced in favour of it by the Oaksey Committee were quite sound. If I were to add rent to the pensions, as I could have done under the regulations, what would have happened? A police constable living in a house which he rents for himself at Bognor, or some other expensive town on the South Coast, would probably be getting 25s. or 30s. a week added to his pensionable pay; whereas a man living in a police house would only be getting perhaps 14 shillings or even less added, and that would create an anomaly and an unjust distribution of pensions that no one could justify.

Mrs. Braddock: But has not rent always been calculated as an emolument?

Mr. Ede: It may have been calculated as an emolument, but not as a pensionable emolument. When I first took office I was faced with the appalling conditions which confronted constables, in the kind of expensive area I have mentioned, who got a very limited rent allowance, and I have tried to ensure that what a constable actually pays for rent shall be reimbursed to him; but I could not contemplate that it might be added to his pension when he might go off to somewhere quite cheap and live on it.
With regard to paragraph 135, that is not a matter on which an officer will have to elect. Section (2) relates to scales of pay, and paragraph 135 does not deal with scales of pay. It says that if a man is dismissed from the force, he shall lose his pension rights, but he shall have the money he has paid in refunded. There is a possibility that a man, who has been sentenced to be dismissed by his chief constable in a county, or by the watch committee in a borough, can appeal to the Secretary of State, and a not uncommon punishment is not dismissal but requirement to resign. If the man is required to resign, this penalty does not follow, but if he has been guilty of such gross misconduct in the force as to warrant the sentence of dismissal being confirmed, I am inclined to think that this penalty which is recommended by the Oaksey Committee can be justified.

Mr. Frederic Harris: This is a very important point. When talking about dismissal, it is obvious to many of us that there is often a clash of opinion between people in important positions. For instance, may I point out the example of the case at Brighton not long ago?

Mr. Ede: If a man is requested to resign, the penalty does not attach. If he is dismissed by the chief constable or the watch committee he has the right of appeal to the Secretary of State, and if there is any clash of opinion then it must be in the man's favour. I think that the position of the man as put by the hon. Gentleman is reasonably safeguarded.
The right hon. Member for North Leeds made some comments on the Oaksey Committee. I want to express my sincere thanks to the Oaksey Committee for the work they did, and for the detailed care with which they did it. The remaining part of their Report will not deal with these financial matters. It will deal with promotion, methods of representation, negotiation, and other conditions of service. It may very well be that one of the results of their further investigation may be to set up machinery which will enable negotiations to take place between the Police Force and the police authorities in circumstances more analogous to what happens in other branches of the public service than at present exists in respect of the Police Force.
I can say that I most carefully abstained from expressing any views to the Oaksey Committee until they had formulated this part of their Report. I did see their Chairman because I was anxious—as the House is anxious—to bring these improvements into effect at the earliest possible moment. I am thankful to the House for having put itself to the inconvenience of sitting tonight so that we can get these improvements through.
May I say to the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool that I was exceedingly anxious that, if possible, these improvements should be made retrospective, but I am bound to say, owing to a difficulty in the law, it is not possible to make regulations such as these, or the Police Regulations on which pay is based, retrospective. I regret it very much indeed, but by exercising great pressure on the Police Council, and


driving the House rather hard, I have been able to ensure, if the House passes these regulations tonight, that the full benefits of the recommendations of the Oaksey Committee shall attach to the Police Force as from the day after tomorrow.

Mr. Harris: I did raise the point whether, if the new rates could not apply immediately for the pension, the average pay could not be calculated from May, 1948, when this Committee was first appointed.

Mr. Ede: No, it could not.

Resolved:
That the Draft Police Pensions Regulations, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th May, be approved.

12.39 a.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): I beg to move:
That the Draft Police Pensions (Scotland) Regulations, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th May, be approved.
These regulations submitted by my right hon. Friend are similar in all the main essentials to the regulations just approved by the House. I do not think the House will want me to speak at any length in explaining them at this hour. It is appreciated that while there are one or two minor technical differences between the regulations in Scotland and those in England and Wales, inasmuch as these draft regulations are implementing the recommendations of the Oaksey Committee, they are exactly similar to the regulations just passed.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I must say that I have seldom heard a more perfunctory recommendation on an important proposal to the House at any time, and certainly not under the conditions in which the Government brings forward these regulations now. We expect an apology from the Secretary of State for Scotland for bringing Scottish business before the House at all at this time. For what reason does he bring on important Scottish business at 20 minutes to 1 o'clock in the morning dragged at the tail of an English discussion? [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite find it funny. They will not find it so funny in Scotland. We have before

us an important matter touching the Police Forces of Scotland. It is brought before us after long Sittings of the House, when the House has to devote the whole of the next Sitting to Scottish affairs, and without a word of explanation or apology from the responsible Minister for bringing Scottish business forward in such circumstances and at such a time. It is inexcusable, and that is the first point it is necessary to make.
Secondly, it is wrong for the Under-Secretary to state that these are similar in all respects to the English regulations. I have here letters from chief constables in Scotland bringing forward the point that conditions in Scotland differ in some respects very materially from the conditions which apply in England. Does the Under-Secretary deny that?

Mr. Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman is making very heavy weather of this matter. I said that inasmuch as these regulations are implementing the recommendations of the Oaksey Report they are exactly similar to those which have just been approved by the House. That is a statement of fact. It may be that some conditions in the Scottish Police Forces are different from some conditions in the English Police Forces, but that has nothing to do with whether these regulations implement the recommendations of the Report or not.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It has everything to do with it. The letters I have received from the Chief Constable of Falkirk, Roxburgh and Selkirk, the Chief Constable of the City of Glasgow—let hon. Members laugh that off——

Mr. Scollan: Why look at me. I was not laughing.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Member has a guilty conscience, I was not looking at him. The letter of the Chief Constable of the City of Glasgow says that at the half-yearly meeting of the Chief Constables' Association, held on the 9th, it was agreed that all chief constables in Scotland should communicate with the M.P.s for their areas drawing attention to the position of chief constables displaced on the amalgamation of police forces, enclosing a memorandum in accordance with that decision, and saying:
If you can do anything to prevent the pensions of chief constables being subject to


averaging it will be greatly appreciated by all chief constables in Scotland.
Addressed in similar terms is a letter from the Chief Constable of the Berwick, Roxburgh and Selkirk Constabulary, who points out that while he is not affected, personally, he sympathises with the position of his colleagues who are affected and who, he feels, are receiving a raw deal. These are representations from people who have the highest responsibility, and it is vital to Scotland that they should not have any sense of having received injustice or a raw deal.
One difficulty of taking a discussion such as this at such an hour is that the possibility of explanation, which is one of the purposes of Debate, is necessarily stultified.

Mr. William Ross: Why?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Does the hon. Member think that the Press is of no importance today, that the publication of our Debate is of no importance?

Mr. Ross: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is asking for an explanation. There is nothing to prevent an explanation and discussion. It can go on as long as it did last night, when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was not here.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I was here last night, as the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister) can testify. Hon. Members opposite do not seem to realise the point of the argument, which is that explanation is not merely explanation to this Chamber, but explanation to the country at large. Do they really think that explanation to the country at large is going to have the same force just now, as it would if the Secretary of State for Scotland had brought on this business for discussion when the papers, both here and in Scotland, could observe and report our Debate, and when those important individuals who have approached us could be sure that their representations were receiving adequate consideration from this House? [An HON. MEMBER: "Who is keeping the Scottish Press out?"] The Secretary of State for Scotland is keeping the Scottish Press out, and he is being supported by hon. Members of the majority party of this House.

Hon. Members: Rubbish.

Mr. Bing: I hesitate to intervene, but are there no evening newspapers in Scotland?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Really, the hon. Member's gambols in the Debates in this House are very entertaining, but I think they are a little out of place in a serious Debate such as this. The representations of the chief constables of cities like Glasgow, and of important counties, cannot simply be brushed aside by the suggestion that there are evening newspapers in Scotland. We do not consider that the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) is entitled to have his affairs discussed at a more convenient hour than the affairs of Scotland. We consider that it is the duty of the Secretary of State for Scotland to secure discussion of our affairs at an hour which they can receive adequate discussion and adequate reporting in the Press. That is the very purpose for which such Debates exist, to clear away misapprehension which may exist, and to afford opportunity for the redress of grievances.

Mr. McAllister: Before the right hon. and gallant Gentleman leaves that point and moves on to the subject under discussion, he might think it right to put on record in the Scottish evening and morning newspapers that at the time that he was making all this fuss there were only three Scottish Conservative Members present.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Perhaps the hon. Member will also realise that there is even less than that proportion of Scottish Labour Members present and that, if I may say so, is nothing to do with the case. It is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland to bring on Scottish business when it can be adequately discussed, a responsibility which he has scandalously failed to discharge on this occasion.

Mr. McAllister: I am sure that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not, as representative of the Scottish Universities, want to be found out in a gross mathematical error. We are in far greater proportion here tonight than are the Scottish Conservatives.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Gentleman must be including, surely, the three Scottish Ministers; but they are


the men on trial. They are the guilty men who have done the damage. There is the Lord Advocate, the Secretary of State, and the Under-Secretary; these are the people who have failed Scotland. We do not wish to bring this matter to an end, but it would not be too difficult to bring it to an end and have them all shown up tonight.
We do not desire to hold up matters in Scotland, but we do desire to have these questions adequately considered, and I should like to know what answer we can have from the Secretary of State to the question which the chief constables have brought up. The Home Secretary said, "Of course, chief constables who have retired at 65 years have pensions based on their actual pay." But that does not apply to the people who lose their posts by reason of amalgamations and it is doubly unfair, since the increases have been made to the junior ranks, that the pay increases of the senior ranks have been held up owing to the "freeze" resulting from the paper on incomes put out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. These salaries were not increased, and the sums upon which these calculations are to be made were artificially "frozen."
Now the Chief Constables Association points out that not only the non-county boroughs specifically provided for in the Act which enable amalgamations to be carried out, are concerned, but two county boroughs have been amalgamated so far. In Scotland several chief constables have been displaced. Some were near retiring age, and more amalgamation schemes are under consideration. Is it denied that these things are so?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn) indicated assent.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The right hon. Gentleman agrees. Will he consent then to the request that these people who most suffer—these people who lose most because they lose office on account of amalgamation—should not be subject to averaging? For, so far, he has refused to accede to this, and the Under-Secretary might surely, quite justly, have referred to these in commending these regulations to the House.
The Secretary of State has so far come down against all representations to secure better treatment for displaced chief constables. That surely is a matter which at

any rate should be mentioned in the House, and I should have thought it would have been defended by the representative of the Government. It is not a subject on which he could have been ignorant or which he could suppose that the House would allow to go through without discussion. Why did the Secretary of State try to shirk all reference to the representations made by the three most responsible police officers in the whole force—the chief constables—who had been moved by a sense of injustice to address themselves to their head, the Secretary of State, and, failing to receive any satisfaction from him, to address themselves directly to hon. Members? It is not possible to suppose that the Under-Secretary expected these representations to receive no consideration from hon. Members and it was bound to delay consideration of the regulations laid before us.
I must appeal to the Secretary of State; why has he so far refused to give any consideration to the request put forward by the chief constables detailed in the memorandum they submitted to us and, no doubt, in memoranda and other representations they have made to him? Has he met them? Will he inform us on that point? Has he afforded these important and responsible officers an opportunity of laying their case personally before him? Surely he can answer that?

Mr. Woodburn: It is difficult to answer in that form. I shall answer it when I come to reply.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Has the right hon. Gentleman met the chief constables? Has he afforded them an opportunity of making representations personally?

Mr. Woodburn: It cannot be answered quite in that form, but they did have an opportunity of making their contact. I shall deal with this point when I reply.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We shall await that because we were not afforded any of this information by the Minister who was put up to make the Government case on these regulations.
There is another point. The Home Secretary gave us figures of the number of constables in England and Wales due to go out and who, had it not been for the passing of the regulations, would have drawn pensions on pay they had only enjoyed for 24 hours. He said he was


not able to give the figures for Scotland, but they could be given. What are the figures for Scotland and why did not the Under-Secretary give them since the matter had been raised in debate and referred to by the Home Secretary? These are among the matters which we wish to have explained to us. Surely, with so short a margin of time left before these regulations had to come into effect, it would have been more seemly if a little more explanation could have been given. It is bound to create in the minds of those affected a suspicion that matters have been held up by the Government until the last possible moment when these regulations are handed to the House between midnight and 1 o'clock in the morning with a most perfunctory few sentences from a junior Minister of the Crown. If the House had accepted that it would have failed in its duty, and we are entitled to a more extended statement from the Secretary of State and hope he will be able to make a more convincing case than the Under-Secretary.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Scollan: I want to ask the Secretary of State a question on this matter, as I have received a letter from the chief constable of the County of Renfrew in which he states:
At a recent meeting of the Chief Constables (Scotland) Association, very keen disappointment was expressed by every member regarding the treatment being meted out to displaced chief constables and it was decided that each chief constable would place the facts before the M.P. for his district.
He then goes on to outline the various documents that he has sent, and this is the point in his letter with which I would like the Secretary of State to deal:
In the event of the suggested amendment becoming a reality, a chief constable being displaced at a too early age—for example, the chief constables of the Burgh of Dumbarton and the County of Aberdeen—is in the same position as to pensions as a chief constable, for example, the chief constable of Kincardineshire, retiring because of the maximum age-limit.
I would like the Secretary of State to deal with that particular point, because I want to have the chief constable of my county, as well as others, satisfied on the point.

1.2 a.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): The right hon. and gallant Gentleman asked why the Under-Secretary

of State did not deal with the possible points that might be raised in the Debate. I think he will agree that it is surely a great discourtesy to the House if hon. Members likely to put points do not at least get a chance of putting them. I am sure that even the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that had the Under-Secretary explained the points, there would have been nothing left for him to make a speech about. So, instead of complaining, he should thank us for leaving one item to be discussed on the Scottish regulations.
First of all, the difficulty in discussing the question whether this or that item of the recommendations should be altered is that this Committee was actually instituted at the request of the Scottish Federation in order that all of this matter should be referred to an independent inquiry. Of course, that Committee took evidence and gave a great deal of thought and attention to this work. The Oaksey Committee presented its Report and the Home Secretary and myself gave consideration to its recommendations. The Home Secretary met the Police Council in London and I met the Police Council in Scotland. I discussed the matter with them and they, like the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, had certain points of objection, and quite a number of other people have other points of objection, to which the police would not give a wholehearted welcome either.
A great number of those points were put to me which ought to have been put to the Oaksey Committee. The choice before us really was whether we were going to re-open the whole question again and set ourselves up as a new Oaksey Committee to re-examine every point again. I respectfully suggest to the House, as I suggested to the Council, that to do that would have meant interminable delay. On the question of getting a settlement there is no guarantee that if we once start to re-discuss this, we will get any more of an agreed settlement than that represented by the Oaksey Report.
I think it is quite a remarkable report, but if I were asked to give my personal views about some of its recommendations, I would have some complaints as well. The situation with the Police Council was that we were bound to consider the question in regard to police objections, but in regard to other people's objections it had


to be recognised that this was a Committee set up partly at the request of the police. A quite remarkable Report was presented and the Police Council discussed it, and, although they objected to certain points, they decided that they would accept the Report, whose recommendations on pensions they wanted put into force by 1st July of this year. I think that is far more important to the police than even the limited number of objections they have to special points in the Report. Since the alternative was either to throw the thing into the melting pot again or to go ahead with the Report as a whole, the Police Council in Scotland decided to go ahead with the Report as a whole.
In these discussions, the chief constables took part. In fact, members of all ranks of the police took part. The chief constables had every opportunity to raise any points to which they objected. In that particular meeting the only point raised was the question of averaging, which has occupied a good deal of attention tonight. In addition, my officers met the chief constables' officials on my behalf on 19th May. It was not possible for me to be there. A very cordial discussion took place on the point specially raised by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite and by my hon. Friend the Member for Western Renfrew (Mr. Scollan).
Let me admit right away that there is an element of hardship in this application of the averaging rule, but there is no rule one can ever introduce in deciding pensions that does not have its marginal cases which bring about hardship. Take the circumstances in Scotland, where we hope to be amalgamating police forces. They place a certain number of chief constables in the position that undoubtedly they feel that they suffer a disability as the result of this averaging. These chief constables, if they are not retiring on age limit, have the option, of course, of continuing to serve in the force in a subordinate capacity, but I appreciate that a man who has been a chief constable and who has reached a mature age hesitates very much about accepting such a position.
On the representations being made to me, I looked very sympathetically into this question whether we could do something to meet their peculiar position, but I came up against the difficulty that frequently

occurs in such cases. I found that it created immediately the implication that a large number of other cases of a similar character would have to be admitted as well, and indeed the averaging principle that the Oaksey Committee have laid down with such fairness would have to be departed from in a great many cases. Therefore, it would be a breach in the acceptance of the Oaksey Report as a whole.
I should like to express my sympathy to those chief constables, because undoubtedly the amalgamation schemes are not of their seeking. In many ways the schemes come about whether they want them or not, and in some cases they may come about despite their feelings in the matter; and it does seem a disadvantage that a man should suffer a disability through no fault of his own. Therefore, all I can do in the matter is to express my sympathy to them in the situation and explain that it would be quite impossible to relax in their case without involving ourselves in an innumerable number of cases that cannot be admitted in accordance with the principle that has been discussed.
I regret that it is necessary for the House of Commons to conduct its business in the early hours of the morning. That is no hobby of mine, and I sometimes regret the religious propensities of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, who insist on praying at the wrong hour of the morning. Frequently, I would much rather be in bed and conduct my religious devotions at the proper time. I am quite sure there are a number of hon. Members who regret that we do not organise our hours according to the normal life of man; but I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite must accept, on behalf of his colleagues, some responsibility for perpetuating this habit that it is part of the Opposition's business to keep the Government out of bed. I assure him, if he is prepared to use his influence with his hon. Friends, I am prepared to give every welcome to his assistance in trying to get the business of the House conducted at the proper time.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The right hon. Gentleman must know, I think, as the Under-Secretary knows, that this business might well have been taken tomorrow night at a more seemly hour, and I do not think the Government would have lost anything by so doing.

Mr. Woodburn: Actually the Government might have gained, because it would have meant that the police pay would have been delayed.

Mr. Elliot: The right hon. Gentleman is in error. If it had been taken, as I offered, before midnight tomorrow night, nothing whatever would have been lost. The business would have been done and the police would have been satisfied.

Mr. Woodburn: I am sure that for such a good cause the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has been quite prepared to sacrifice this extra hour of sleep. I propose helping him in every way by concluding my remarks. I thank the House for being as brief as it has been in this matter. I hope the police will recognise that at this time of national stringency, when the White Paper recommends that there should be great restraint in demands for increases in pay, they at least have come very fortunately out of the bag. Nobody gets all he wants, but I think the police ought to feel satisfied that the Government have done everything they can to implement the Oaksey Report without delay.

Resolved:
That the Draft Police Pensions (Scotland) Regulations, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th May, be approved.

EGYPT (BRITISH SUBJECTS)

Motion made, and question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pearson.]

1.12 a.m.

Mr. John Foster: I wish to raise a matter which is of some importance in the conduct of our foreign affairs, namely, the question of the treatment of British subjects in Egypt. The treatment of British subjects in Egypt must be taken against a background, during the last two years, of a strong spirit of nationalism on the part of the Egyptians. We have seen in Egypt a spectacle of severe riots, of measures being taken against foreigners in the employment sphere, of concentration camps being established, of night assaults being made against foreigners, of nationality law being administered so that many thousands of people who were born in Egypt are regarded by the Egyptian

authorities as not being Egyptian, of unreasoning xenophobia, and so on. The attacks which have been made and the bombs which have been thrown have resulted in the deaths of foreign nationals in Egypt. We had the most tragic instance of the French Olympic coach being torn to pieces by a mob; of an American who was robbed in a taxicab by an enraged group of Egyptians and torn to pieces, and our own Chief Justice injured, I think it was, by a bomb.
Reports in the Press have shown that there are a lot of British subjects in Egypt who are unemployed through the Egyptian company law which requires that a very high proportion of the employed, whether qualified or not, should be Egyptian. It is inevitable that the incidence of these harsh measures should have fallen very largely on British subjects who are of the Jewish race, and we find among the British Jewish population in Egypt many of the features of the persecution of the Jewish race in Nazi Germany. We have the same visits by police at night—the rapping on the door, and the search. We have also the instance, which might well have occurred in Germany, of a large number of Jewish families being turned out of their homes at a few hours' notice—of men, women and children being thrown into the streets. The Egyptians, under the provisions of their martial law, have set up a system of sequestration under which businesses are confiscated from owners who are left to starve.
Dealing with the matter of protection of British subjects, I would ask the Minister of State what the situation is today? It is difficult to get accurate information from Egypt, and I hope and believe that the situation is getting better. I think it is right—even at the cost of affronting the Egyptian Government somewhat—to state for record what has happened in the last two years. I believe that in many respects the actions of the mob were perhaps contrary to the wishes of the Egyptian Government, although I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the Egyptian Government did not take sufficiently active steps to stop what was happening.
In the earlier part of this year the right hon. Gentleman informed, I think, the hon. Member for East Willesden (Mr. Orbach) that 21 British subjects of the Jewish race had been arrested and put


into camps, but 12 were released. Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to what is the state of the other nine? The right hon. Gentleman will probably remember that in July of last year our Ambassador in Egypt, Sir Ronald Campbell, complained to the Egyptian Government and expressed grave concern at the considerable number of British subjects who had been the victims of assaults during attacks on foreigners in the preceding few days. How many British people were the subjects of these attacks, and what redress have British subjects obtained as the result of this protest?
Can the right hon. Gentleman also say the number of British subjects and the amount of property subjected to sequestration by the Egyptian Government, and whether any redress has been obtained by the victims of these measures? It is inevitable in a debate of this kind that the name of Don Pacifico should be brought up. He was a British subject of the Jewish race from Gibraltar and was ill-treated, as Palmerston considered, by the Greek Government. Palmerston took steps which are perhaps in keeping with the modern age. He did react vigorously to the ill-treatment of a British subject and quotes the famous saying "Civis Romanus sum." The other sphere in which British subjects have been submitted to treatment which should call forth vigorous protest on our part is when entering or leaving Egypt, or going through it, during a voyage, say, to the Far East from this country.
One subject I have not raised with the right hon. Gentleman before is the Egyptian rule that no foreigner can leave Egypt without getting an exit permit. In practice, for a considerable time Jews were not allowed to leave the country even if they were of British nationality, and even if they had no connection with Egypt. I do not know what the position is today. Two names were given to me, one, that of a Mr. Rofe, who went to Egypt on a visit—he had formerly been connected with Egypt, though he was not then—and was not allowed out of the country because he was of the Jewish race. The other was of a South African lady who experienced most unpleasant incidents when she tried to go back to South Africa after a visit to Egypt. She was first turned back and told she could not leave because she was Jewish, and

on the second occasion, when all her papers were in order, she was detained for a few hours while the authority was checked.
The other aspect of this concerns the measures which the Egyptian authorities have thought fit to take against passengers of the Jewish race in British ships and aeroplanes, and presumably other foreign craft too. It is a most disgraceful thing that the captains of our ships and aeroplanes should be made to distinguish between one British subject and another in the matter of race. In one instance, I think the case of Mr. Clements, I presume an undergraduate of Magdalen College, differences arose on whether the captain should or should not disclose the presence of what are called "baptised Jews." This is a position that we ought not to tolerate. Passengers with Jewish names were called together by the captain of the ship, who pointed out that the Egyptians would not allow the Jews to land although the Christians could, do so, and asked for their passports. In another instance—the case was taken up by an hon. Member—Mr. Waley Cohen was concerned, and also there was the case of Mrs. Bacon. The cases are all the same, the Egyptians discriminating against British subjects of the Jewish race by not allowing them to land, submitting them to extra interrogation, and restricting their liberties.
The object of raising this matter on the Adjournment is to find out what the present position is, and to suggest that, perhaps by reason of question of higher policy, the British Commissioner in Cairo has not been sufficiently strongly instructed to make sufficiently energetic protests to the Egyptian Government about these measures directed against British subjects. And as I said, in measures which affect British subjects, Jews and non-Jews, although these are inevitable because of the relations between Egypt and Israel, the British subjects of the Jewish race have suffered very much more than those of the non-Jewish races.
I would draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that it is reported by the head of one of the British relief organisations in Cairo that there is a very large measure of unemployment in the last two months, especially of British subjects not of United Kingdom


origin. That is causing great anxiety. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information as to what measures are being taken to repatriate British subjects if they have homes; and in the case of British subjects in the Middle East who have no connection except with the Middle East, what steps are being taken about them, because the Egyptians have made it so that it is very difficult for the ordinary foreigner to make a living.

Sir Basil Neven-Spence: I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman could say something about the treatment which is being meted out to British shipping in the Canal at the present time. I understand they are liable to be held up as long as 10 days, and made to discharge a large part of their cargoes, which involves enormous expense. Why is this being done, and what steps are being taken to stop it?

The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil): The hon. Gentleman the Member for Northwich (Mr. Foster) was good enough to let me know most of the ground he was going to cover, but I think, Mr. Speaker, you will agree, even if I were going to occupy the full 15 minutes left to me, it would be very difficult to answer in detail. I want to say at once that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and His Majesty's Government have been exceedingly displeased by these improprieties and indignities visited upon British subjects, and by these incidents directed against British shipping.
While I agree that in most cases action seems to have been taken against British subjects of Jewish origin, His Majesty's Government have not allowed that to affect their attitude at all. These people, whether of Jewish, Cypriot, or Maltese origin, are British subjects, and we have our obligations towards them. We have not been at all backward in the discharge of those obligations, but I do not think the hon. Gentleman expects us to use Gladstonian methods in the days of the Security Council.
We cannot condone the action which the Government of Egypt have, from time to time over the last 12 or 18 months, taken against these subjects, but while we could not condone and do not excuse it, it is understandable why at times they took some unusual steps against some

of these people. They were improper steps, but there was a period of emergency, and emergency measures were to be expected. Secondly, there are in Egypt some 25,000 British subjects, many of them Cypriots and Maltese, I agree. While the list to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention is not unsubstantial, the thing is out of focus. There has been no wholesale discrimination against British subjects, but I do not want for a moment to suggest that we otherwise than disapprove most strongly of these incidents.
It might be convenient if I tried to group them in the fashion in which the hon. Gentleman did. There is first the question of British subjects affected by legislation to which he drew attention, which dates from July, 1947. It provides that in all grades of business the directors, executives, workmen, a percentage, in the case of ordinary workmen, 90 per cent., must be Egyptian. The percentages have to be attained over a period of three years. That has occasioned widespread unemployment among British subjects which is accentuated by the cessation of the employment which our military forces offered particularly to British subjects in Egypt, during their temporary residence there.
We have done what was within our power to deal with these unemployed people on decisions taken two years ago. In the case of Cypriots, the Government of Cyprus have provided for repatriation, and His Majesty's Government have assisted the process which is going normally. In relation to Maltese, the situation is much more complex. Overpopulation of Malta has not permitted repatriation to be carried out. Some of the Maltese, with their unusual qualifications, we have been able to absorb in employment in the United Kingdom. The Australian Government have been very helpful, and there has been a not inconsiderable movement of these Maltese from Egypt to Australia. Shipping has been the bottleneck. Some 60 people, my recollection is, have already been removed, and the shipping position is improving a little.
In relation to our unemployed people, that is people of United Kingdom origin, there has been a steady movement back home and they are being assisted where necessary by our Consular officers. I


should perhaps mention that there has been destitution among these unemployed people, particularly among those of Maltese origin. We issued instructions to Consular offices some time ago to afford some measure of relief to these people. I have not recent figures, but I believe that in the past year some £5,000 has been spent in the process. I do not suggest that that is sufficient. I offer it as evidence that we are doing what lies within our power to see that the sharp edge of hardship is avoided.
I cannot pretend that it lies within the competence of the Government to take any ambitious steps there. This legislation discriminating against our subjects is not confined to Egypt. It is a shortsighted policy, and I am sure that many of these developing countries will quite soon have to admit that they are robbing themselves of technical knowledge which in many instances they cannot match from their own sources. The other types of discrimination, none of which is excusable, can be reasonably characterised as being anti-Semitic. I thought the hon. Gentleman was rather sweeping in suggesting that this was a wholesale process.
For example, there is the suggestion that there was a normal method of interfering with United Kingdom subjects of Jewish origin in their passage through the Canal. I have a note of only three occasions in which this happened. I do not suggest for a second that in any case was it excusable. What happened was that when Egypt was involved in hostilities, the Egyptian police had emergency powers by which they sought to find out from the masters of ships whether there were any people of Jewish origin, and they took steps to try to prevent such people from surreptitiously leaving the ships and making for Egyptian soil. In two cases, passports were removed and, of course, the Government felt that we had to make immediate representation about that. But we were badly handicapped

because, as the hon. Gentleman will recollect, the instances were not brought to our notice at the time and there was difficulty in ascertaining the facts.
With regard to the unjustified interference with the freedom of British subjects, I think it is a little picturesque to talk about the knocking at the door. I know of only one case where a British subject was searched at his house at night. Here again, there was a great delay. This took place last November but the facts were not brought to my notice until last February, when we made such protest as we could. The next type of offence was the sequestration of British property. In one case we did manage to have the sequestration removed but there are two other cases, one involving one British subject, and another involving two British subjects. In these cases we have not been successful, but the matter has been actively pressed in London and in Cairo.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me about the arrests. Twenty British subjects were arrested during this emergency ordinance. In consequence of our representations 15 have been released. Five are still detained. We think this most serious and an opportunity was afforded me in Paris to see His Excellency the Egyptian Foreign Minister and I put the case as strongly as I possibly could. Our Ambassador has made protests, three written and one oral, and he will return immediately to these five cases. We have constantly engaged ourselves with this subject and will bring all proper measures to bear upon the Egyptian Government. I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this subject and to say that I appreciate the cases to which he refers and assure him that we are not inactive.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes to Two o'Clock a.m.